2002-12-114013REPS1007502002-12-11—————The SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous1007509:31:0010075McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Barton moving forthwith that the Attorney-General:(1) confirm that he has held secret talks with candidates for the High Court of Australia;(2) immediately disclose which candidates he has spoken to and precisely what he discussed with them; and(3) explain why he has abandoned a fundamental and long-standing convention that an Attorney-General must not conduct private interviews with candidates for judicial appointment.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—Mr Speaker, the maintenance of—09:32:0010075Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPLeader of the House10—I move:That the question be now put.Question put.09:36:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 76Abbott, 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.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.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.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.53Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.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.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.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.Question put:That the motion (Mr McClelland's) be agreed to.09:43:00The House divided.(The Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 54Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.George, J.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Grierson, S.J.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Irwin, J.Jackson, S.M.Jenkins, H.A.Kerr, D.J.C.King, C.F.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, B.P.Plibersek, T.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.74Abbott, 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.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Dutton, P.C.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Farmer, P.F.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.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.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.Question negatived.Bills10076R167610076Bill presented by Mr Andrews, and read a first time.1007609:50:0010076Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This bill makes a number of amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 in relation to the payment of Medicare benefits for diagnostic imaging and radiation oncology services.The amount of Medicare benefits paid to patients for diagnostic imaging and radiation oncology services is substantial—in the order of $1.3 billion annually or about 16 per cent of total Medicare outlays. The Government needs to therefore ensure accountability for expenditure in this area while giving patients access to these services whenever they need them.The bill contains three measures that are designed to continue to facilitate accountability for the cost-effective provision of diagnostic imaging and radiation oncology services for all Australians. The first measure establishes a scheme for the registration of practice sites that undertake diagnostic imaging procedures. These procedures include diagnostic radiology, ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and nuclear medicine. Registration also applies to practice sites that render radiation oncology services. These sites will need to be registered in order for Medicare benefits to be payable.The registration system will provide a mechanism for the Commonwealth government to collect further information about the rendering of diagnostic imaging and radiation oncology services.Two of the key pieces of information to be collected from a registered practice will be the numbers and type of equipment located at the site and proprietorship details of the site and practice.This will allow the Commonwealth, in association with the medical profession, to monitor the nature of services provided by a number of different factors, such as practice type, size and structure. For example, we will be able to look at whether a practice is a stand-alone practice or co-located with a primary care practice, a public hospital, or a mobile service.There is a perception that the changing ownership structure in medical practice may lead to pressures on practitioners to adopt methods that favour corporate profits to the detriment of access to, and quality of, care. These pressures may encourage, for example, high throughput of patients, unnecessary return consultations, and/or excessive ordering of diagnostic imaging services.The information collected through the registration of practices will enable the Commonwealth to monitor activity in this area to ensure that patient access and high quality care are maintained.The information will also help to address overservicing, claiming errors and inappropriate practice. It will also enable the assessment of compliance for benefits by ensuring that the equipment used in relation to a Medicare claim meets the eligibility requirements.The monetary savings made in addressing these issues can be then redirected back into the Medicare program to improve access.Information collected under the new system will therefore help the government to plan and develop programs to maintain the key objectives of Medicare. These objectives are of course to:. make health care affordable for all Australians; . give all Australians access to health care services with priority according to clinical need; and. provide a high quality of care.The need to introduce a means of identifying physical practices in diagnostic imaging was identified as part of the collaborative agreement between the Commonwealth, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists and the Australian Diagnostic Imaging Association. This agreement allows the Commonwealth to manage Medicare expenditure in diagnostic imaging in collaboration with the diagnostic imaging industry. Other groups of medical practitioners who regularly provide diagnostic imaging services were also consulted with in the development of this measure as well.A similar registration and information collection system already exists under Commonwealth Health Program Grant requirements for radiation oncology; however, these only apply to private radiation oncology practice sites.While this provides comprehensive information on those sites, there is very little data available on public radiation oncology facilities, which form the majority of service providers. This restricts the ability of providers and government to adequately plan and provide appropriate access to these services.The introduction of location specific practice numbers for radiation oncology practice sites was recommended by the Radiation Oncology Inquiry Committee in its report of 8 June 2002. This will bring public and private facilities under the one umbrella to help address planning, service provision, work force, age of equipment and other issues identified in the report. Once registered, all that practice sites will need to do is advise of changes to the information on the register. It is envisaged that practices will also be annually sent details of the information on the register for the practice to confirm or change details on a periodic basis. The impact of this measure on practices will therefore be minimal.The second measure in this bill implements recommendations of a review commissioned by the federal government in July 2000 in relation to the referral arrangements for diagnostic imaging services. The review committee included representatives from the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, the Committee of Presidents of Medical Colleges, the Australian and New Zealand Association of Physicians in Nuclear Medicine and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.The committee's recommendations being addressed in this bill are:. allowing a provider to substitute a more appropriate imaging service where the provider feels that the patient has been referred for an inappropriate service;. requiring a further referral where a service provider deems additional services to those specified in the original referral are necessary and those services are of the type that would have otherwise required a referral by specialist; and. making it unlawful for all diagnostic imaging service providers to station diagnostic imaging equipment or employees at the premise of another practitioner. This measure currently applies only to specialist radiologists.So that patients are not disadvantaged by this last recommendation, exemptions to this provision will be provided in identified areas of need, for example, in rural and remote areas.These new provisions will streamline referral arrangements in diagnostic imaging, making it easier for patients to access, and the provider to deliver, the most appropriate services.The final measure seeks to redress an anomaly relating to the referring arrangements for osteopaths.Under the current legislation, practitioners registered as chiropractors under state or territory registration laws can request specified diagnostic imaging services under the Medicare arrangements. Osteopaths registered as chiropractors under those laws are also able to participate.However, some states now have separate legislation governing the registration of chiropractors and osteopaths which means that osteopaths in those states are unable to access the referring arrangements for diagnostic imaging services.The amendments will restore the rights of affected osteopaths. They will also allow state or territory registered osteopaths who were not previously registered as chiropractors under state or territory legislation to request these services.I commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned.Bills10078R170610078Bill presented by Mr Andrews, and read a first time.1007809:58:0010078Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This bill will establish a National Blood Authority. The National Blood Authority will improve and enhance the management of Australia's blood supply at a national level. With the passage of this bill, Australia will, for the first time, have a national overarching agency responsible for managing the supply of blood and blood products across the country, and for coordinating safety, quality and information systems on behalf of all governments.This bill is an integral part of the new national blood sector arrangements agreed to by Australian health ministers in November 2002 and, together with the new National Blood Agreement, represents the new national approach preferred and supported by all states and territories. The endorsement of the bill has been the culmination of consideration and cooperation by all governments to bring about necessary reforms to Australia's blood sector. Proposed reforms of the blood sector follow on from two major reviews: the Commonwealth Review of Australian blood and blood product system—the McKay Wells review—undertaken in 1995, and the Review of the Australian blood banking and plasma product sector—the Stephen review—in 1999. Although the Australian Red Cross Blood Service was formed and a forum established following the 1995 review which aimed to strengthen national policy coordination, administrative arrangements across jurisdictions remained somewhat fragmented, prompting the second review in 1999.The Stephen review, released in March 2001, provided a number of recommendations aimed at addressing further challenges associated with poor cost-effectiveness of new technologies and the rising demand for blood products. It also recommended new administrative arrangements for the blood sector.All Australian governments have been working together to implement the recommendations arising from the Stephen review and to put in place arrangements that will build on improving the national blood system and enhance Australia's existing national policy objectives.This bill seeks to implement the main recommendation of that review in establishing the National Blood Authority to provide national management and oversight of Australia's blood supply. The National Blood Authority will liaise and gather information across Australia on issues relating to blood products and services. It will plan and budget for the supply of blood and ensure that appropriate supply is maintained in all states and territories. It will also monitor the funding issues associated with the management and supply of blood products and services across Australia.These new arrangements will bring about a number of benefits, including coordinated demand and supply planning, and improved evidence based processes for the introduction of new products and services into the sector. The new arrangements will then provide governments with an enhanced ability to evaluate new products and services to ensure continued access by the community to the products they need. These include the provision of an adequate, safe, secure and affordable supply of blood products and services in Australia, and the promotion of safe, high-quality management and use of blood products.The new arrangements will ensure the preservation of the key principles that have served the national interest well, namely voluntary, non-remunerated donation of blood by donors in the Australian community, and national self-sufficiency in blood and blood products. The new arrangements will also see the continuation of existing regulation for collecting, processing, distributing, exporting and importing blood and blood products, and the provision of products free of charge to patients and other end users, for example the haeomophiliac community.The National Blood Authority will operate within policy approved by the ministerial council, and in full consideration with all governments through a jurisdictional blood committee.The functions of the board will include the selection of a general manager, liaising with governments, suppliers and others about matters relating to National Blood Authority functions, and advising the general manager on issues relating to the performance of functions.The provisions contained in this bill will strengthen accountability in the blood sector and ensure that Australia's blood supply continues to be adequate, safe, secure and affordable. Governments will be provided with better information to determine appropriate purchases in response to clinical need, and mechanisms will also be provided to ensure evidence based assessment of new sector initiatives for products, services and technologies through transparent evaluation of health gain. The establishment of the National Blood Authority is central to the achievement of these aims, and will ensure the protection of consumers and maintenance of public confidence in Australia's blood supply.I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned.Bills10080R170010080Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1008010:04:0010080Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This bill will repeal the Designs Act 1906 and implement a new registration system for industrial designs. It represents a fundamental change to the registration and protection of industrial designs in Australia and is the culmination of many years of review and consultation.In light of industry concerns with the current designs legislation, the Australian Law Reform Commission undertook an extensive review of the Designs Act. The ALRC found that the current designs system provides ineffective protection because registration is too easy to obtain but the rights lack enforceability because it is difficult to prove that a registration has been infringed.The ALRC recommended that the government improve the designs system by providing clearer definitions, stricter eligibility and infringement tests, a more streamlined registration system and better enforcement and dispute resolution procedures. The report included 188 separate recommendations, the vast majority of which were accepted by the government.An exposure draft of this bill was released for public comment in May last year and 14 submissions from a range of interest groups were received. The government has given close consideration to all the comments received to ensure that the new legislation achieves its intended purpose and is accessible and relevant to all users of the designs system.This bill is intended to provide a simple to use, cost effective designs system that provides designers with more enforceable rights.The key features of the new system are: a higher threshold test for gaining rights and a broader infringement test, which will make a design registration harder to obtain but easier to enforce; a streamlined registration process allowing for quicker and cost effective registration of designs; and a reduced term of registration from 16 to 10 years.This bill will implement a new higher threshold test for designs. Currently, the threshold requirement is that a design must be either new or original. The current test has proved unsatisfactory because the meaning of the originality test is uncertain and the interpretation of the newness test has led to dissatisfaction because even very minor alterations have been held to constitute a new design.The new threshold test will be a two-step test; namely, a design will not be registrable unless it is both new and distinctive. The requirement for a design to be new will be a filter to eliminate identical designs. The term `distinctive' is intended to require a greater differentiation than at present from previously published or used designs. The test of whether a design is distinctive will be one of substantial similarity in overall impression. This test will provide that minor or insignificant changes to a design are irrelevant if the overall impression remains one of substantial or significant similarity.The infringement test will be consistent with the definition of distinctiveif another design is used that is substantially similar in overall impression to a registered design, that use will be an infringement. This infringement test is clear and simple and will help to ensure that design rights are enforceable.The threshold for registration will also be raised by expanding the prior art base, which is the body of publicly available information that a design is compared with to determine whether or not it is new and distinctive. Currently, the prior art base consists of information about designs that have been published or used in Australia. Under the new designs system all applications for design registration will be assessed against designs used previously in Australia or published anywhere in the world. Expanding the prior art base means that a design will be compared against more information, thereby increasing the likelihood that the design is both new and distinctive. This bill implements a new streamlined system of post registration examination. Currently, all design applications are substantively examined to ensure they meet the relevant statutory criteria. If accepted, they are then published and registered. However, examination is time consuming and expensive and, as only a small proportion of design registrations become subject to infringement concerns or litigation, it is not always necessary.Under the new system design applications will only undergo a formalities check prior to being registered and published. This allows design owners to put their claims on the public record without the need to go through the costly substantive examination process. Substantive examination will only be undertaken if requested by the owner or any other person, or if the registrar decides to examine the design. If a third party requests examination, they may give the registrar any information that is relevant to the decision of whether the design is new and distinctive.If the registrar finds that the design meets all the requirements of the legislation then a certificate of examination will be issued and the design will remain on the register. If not, it will be removed. A design owner may only take action to enforce their rights if a certificate of examination has been issued.Another important aspect of this bill is the exclusion of spare parts from protection under the new designs system. The government recognises that whether or not spare parts should be eligible for design protection is a complex issue, and after careful consideration believes that this exclusion is warranted. In reaching this decision, the government was concerned to ensure effective competition in the spare parts market leading to lower prices for consumers, for example, motorists in the case of spare parts for motor vehicles. An exclusion should give consumers greater choice and lower prices when they are looking to purchase spare parts to repair or restore complex products to their original appearance.The bill implements the spare parts exclusion by a `right of repair' exemption. This will still allow the design registration of component parts of a complex product but use of design registered parts for repair purposes, for example, as spare parts, will provide a complete defence against infringement. The use of design registered parts for non-repair purposes will be an infringement of the registered design but the onus will be on the design owner to prove that parts were being used for non-repair purposes. This approach recognises that component parts of a complex product can either be used as original equipment or as spare parts, and seeks to strike a balance between providing an incentive for creative activity in design and enabling competition in the spare parts market. It will provide protection for original equipment use by allowing new and distinctive designs of component parts of complex products to be registrable. However, where design registered component parts are used as spare parts for repair or replacement purposes there would not be an infringement.Given the complexities of the spare parts issue, the operation of the `right of repair' exemption will be closely monitored with a formal review to take place before the end of 2005.The government believes that the new design registration system will provide improved protection for design owners against free riders. It will encourage innovation by helping designers to capture the benefit of their work and make more innovative products available to consumers. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned.Bills10082R170110082Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1008210:14:0010082Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.This bill will make the amendments necessary as a consequence of the amendments to be made by the Designs Bill 2002. It includes amendments to the Copyright Act 1968 relating to the overlap between design and copyright protection and minor amendments to a number of other pieces of Commonwealth legislation.Schedule 1 of the bill will reform sections 74 to 77 comprising division 8 of part III of the Copyright Act. This division deals with the relationship between copyright protection and designs protection. These provisions limit copyright protection of artistic works that are either registered as designs or industrially applied without registration. Typically these provisions apply to drawings that become the designs for mass-produced industrial products.The policy underlying this division of the Copyright Act is that artistic works that have been commercially exploited as three-dimensional designs should generally lose copyright protection when used as a design. However, artistic works used as a two-dimensional pattern or ornamentation should continue to receive copyright protection. Works of artistic craftsmanship and buildings also retain copyright protection even where industrially applied. The Australian Law Reform Commission supported that policy but recommended several amendments to simplify and clarify the operation of the division. The amendments in schedule 1 implement the government response to the commission's report and make changes that are consequential to the enactment of the Designs Act 2002.The amendments that are to be made in schedule 2 of this bill are minor amendments consequential to the introduction of the Designs Bill 2002 and repeal of the Designs Act 1906. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned.Bills10082R172010082Bill presented by Mr Entsch, and read a first time.1008210:17:0010082Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Amendment Bill 2002 is to amend the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997.The Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority was corporatised on 28 June 2002. The Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian governments are shareholders in the new company Snowy Hydro Ltd.To allow corporatisation of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority to proceed on 28 June 2002, the Commonwealth undertook, with the agreement of the New South Wales and Victorian governments, to introduce this bill to exempt certain transactions specified under the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 from the goods and services tax, the GST.The original intent conveyed in the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 was that all corporatisation transactions should be exempt from tax. This intent was overruled when the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 came into force. The amending legislation will ensure that the original intent is restored.In accordance with the A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999 and the intergovernmental agreement on the reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations, the unanimous agreement of all state and territory treasurers is required before the amendment can be passed. The New South Wales and Victorian treasurers have consulted and gained unanimous approval from their state and territory colleagues on this amendment. The proposed legislation will not affect the application of GST to any transactions and transfers other than those specifically required under the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997.This amendment is solely for one-off transactions required under the Snowy Hydro Corporatisation Act 1997 and no significant or unforseen ramifications for GST revenue are expected from the amendment. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Cox) adjourned.Bills10083R171910083Bill presented by Mr Tuckey, and read a first time.1008310:20:0010083Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.The Maritime Legislation Amendment Bill 2002 will amend four acts and repeal another act which is no longer of any effect. The bill does not attempt any major reforms. Rather, it is primarily intended to ensure that some recent decisions taken by the International Maritime Organisation are reflected in Australian legislation.The most significant amendments in this bill are the amendments contained in schedule 1 to the Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Act 1981 and to the Protection of the Sea (Oil Pollution Compensation Fund) Act 1993. Those amendments relate to compensation for pollution damage resulting from spills of `persistent' oils from oil tankers. Persistent oils are heavy oils which do not evaporate readily, such as crude oil, fuel oil, heavy diesel oil and lubricating oil.Australia is a party to the two-tier international scheme for providing compensation for pollution damage resulting from oil spills from oil tankers. Under this scheme, risk is shared between tanker owners and cargo interests.Following an oil spill, a tanker owner is required to pay compensation up to a specified limit, that limit depending on the size of the tanker. If damage exceeds the amount obtainable from the owner, or the tanker owner cannot be identified, is uninsured or is insolvent, then the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund will make payments on top of any payments made by the tanker owner so that the total maximum compensation payable for a single pollution incident is approximately $A320 million.The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund is funded by levies imposed on companies which receive by sea more than 150,000 tons of persistent oil in a calendar year. The combined annual contributions for each of the last three years from the five Australian companies which contribute to the fund has averaged about $4 million.In October 2000, the Legal Committee of the International Maritime Organisation passed resolutions to amend the applicable conventions so that, following an oil pollution incident involving a tanker, the limits on the amount of compensation available from the tanker owner and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund will be increased by approximately 50 per cent, with effect from 1 November 2003. The amendments made by items 1 to 6 of schedule 1 of the bill will implement these increased limits.There have been only two cases worldwide where the applicable conventions applied and where the eligible compensation claims have exceeded the current limit. These were the breaking up of the Nakhodka in the Sea of Japan on 2 January 1997 and the breaking up of the Erika off the coast of Brittany, France on 12 December 1999. In putting forward these amendments, the government is demonstrating its commitment to ensure the payment of full compensation in even the most catastrophic of pollution incidents, however unlikely such an incident may be. The vigorous and thorough port state control inspections by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority of ships entering Australian ports help ensure that those tankers that are most likely to cause such an incident do not trade with Australia. While the increased limits for tanker owners have the potential to increase insurance costs, advice provided by the International Group of Protection and Indemnity Associations indicates that, as premiums are based on historical claims data, the increased limits would not result in an automatic increase in premiums. If there are any premium increases, they are likely to be insignificant.These amendments are supported by the shipping and oil industries. While acknowledging the possibility of a major oil spill, industry recognises its responsibility to prevent pollution as far as possible and to provide for adequate compensation in the case of an incident. It should be noted that there has not been an oil pollution incident in Australian waters where the compensation costs have required a contribution from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund.The amendments made by this bill to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution From Ships) Act 1983 serve three minor purposes. There are currently restrictions on the disposal of garbage from ships into the sea. In accordance with a resolution of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organisation, item 7 of schedule 1 of the bill will further restrict the disposal of garbage from a ship by placing an absolute prohibition on the disposal of incinerator ashes from plastic products where there is a risk that those plastic products may contain toxic or heavy metal residues. Such incinerator ashes will be required to be stored on a ship for disposal in a proper facility when the ship is at a port.Ships of 12 metres or more in length are required to display placards setting out the kinds of garbage that may be disposed of from the ship and the conditions to which such disposal is subject. The placards must be written in the language of the flag state of the ship. If that language is not English or French, the information must also be written in either English or French. In accordance with a resolution of the Marine Environment Protection Committee, items 8 and 9 of schedule 1 allow the placards to be written in Spanish as an alternative third language.The final amendments to the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution From Ships) Act are made by items 2 to 28 of schedule 3 of the bill. Those items convert penalties in the act from monetary amounts to penalty units. These are direct conversions without any change at all in the level of penalty.Schedule 2 of the bill will make a minor clarificatory amendment to the Trade Practices Act 1974. Under part X of the Trade Practices Act, liner shipping is given limited conditional exemptions from the general prohibition on anticompetitive conduct in order to allow shipping lines to collaborate as liner `conferences' in setting shipping charges. Section 10.24A of part X could possibly be interpreted as allowing stevedoring operators to collude in determining the terms and conditions of a stevedoring contract to be negotiated with a shipping conference. The amendments made by schedule 2 will explicitly state that the exemptions that apply to liner shipping in relation to negotiating stevedoring contracts under section 10.24A do not apply to stevedoring operators.The final amendment in this bill is the repeal of the Bass Strait Sea Passenger Service Agreement Act 1984. The purpose of this act was to approve an agreement made in 1984 between the Commonwealth and Tasmania. Under the agreement, the Commonwealth provided financial assistance to Tasmania to allow for the replacement of the Bass Strait ferry Empress of Tasmania with a newer vessel, the Spirit of Tasmania, and also for the upgrading of terminal facilities. The grants have been made and all conditions of the agreement have been complied with. As the act no longer performs any useful function, it is being repealed by item 1 of schedule 3 of the bill. I present the explanatory memorandum for this bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Edwards) adjourned.Bills10085R147810085Debate resumed from 10 December, on motion by Mr Abbott:That this bill be now read a second time.10:30:0010085Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002. Whenever this House debates a bill involving workplace relations, a change seems to come over some members opposite. Instead of their calm and boring presence in the chamber, they go through a kind of Jekyll and Hyde transformation. Whenever they cannot get their way to deny the rights of workers, whenever you mention the word `union', they start frothing and foaming at the mouth. This debate has really got them going all over again. It has really got them into a lather. There is more froth and foam on the government benches than on a busy night at the local laundromat. There are enough suds over there to keep the member for Wentworth in fresh towels for a month. I wonder what it is about government members that gets them so worked up. Is it because they are so out of touch with the realities of the lives of working people? Why is it that, in their speeches, they refer to employers like they are all clones of Mother Teresa? Why do they seem to think that all workplaces are like a von Trapp family Christmas party? Why are they so out of touch with the real world? We have all heard the claims by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations that Labor is 50 per cent controlled by unions, but what is obvious from the way government members carry on is that they are 100 per cent controlled by employers. This legislation is a large part of the dividend they will pay this year.When you consider that the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 deals with casual workers, we are not dealing with a group of people who are the highest paid in the work force. In fact, casual workers are amongst the lowest paid. Nearly two-thirds of all 15- to 19-year-olds in the work force are casual employees, and nearly one-third of all female employees are casual. Overall, there are more than two million casual employees in Australia, or around 27 per cent of the work force. That number has grown rapidly in recent years. Casual employment more than doubled between 1984 and 1999, while permanent employment increased by less than 20 per cent. Clearly, employers see great benefit in casual employment. Why else would the numbers of casual jobs have increased so much?I might add, for the benefit of members opposite—and I hope they are listening to what I am saying—that the increase in casual employment was occurring long before Labor introduced unfair dismissal laws. But, before we jump to conclusions about a casual work force made up of kids working at McDonalds after school and bored housewives earning a bit of pin money, we should understand that even a small income for a student or parent can make all the difference between making ends meet and being forced to drop out of school or further education. Even a little bit of extra income makes a whole difference, and families come to depend on that little bit of extra income.When I think of young people who go to university or to TAFE colleges, almost all of them have casual or part-time jobs. My daughter Rebecca was at university. She worked at a mixture of jobs. She worked as a checkout chick, she worked in fashion retail and, at one stage, she even sold chips and hot dogs at Parramatta Stadium. That is fairly typical of many young people today. They have commitments: some buy a car, and they have mobile phone bills—tell me about it!—to pay. So if that income is lost, either they or their family suffer as a result. In short, individuals and families depend on incomes from casual work. Losing a casual job can cause just as much as hardship as the loss of a permanent job.As I said, nearly two out of every three younger workers are employed as casuals. Young people do not have the experience in the work force and, as any youth worker will tell you, most young people do not know much about their rights in the workplace. They are one group that can suffer if an employer wants to use the changes that the government is seeking to make in this legislation. The other group, and one that I am most concerned about, is women in the workplace. Many women in the Fowler electorate do casual work, but they do not always take casual jobs because they like the hours they can work. Casual work is often the only form of employment they can find. As I said earlier, casual employment in Australia has more than doubled, while permanent work has grown more slowly. For many women, they do not have a choice. They either take a casual job, or they do not work at all. For many women, the income from a casual job can make all the difference when it comes to meeting the week's rent or this month's mortgage payment. Families depend on that income. It may be small, it may vary from week to week, but families depend on that bit of extra income coming in. So, when it stops, it means that the family has to go without. No more little luxuries, and often some essentials are cut back as well. That is what I mean when I say that members opposite are out of touch. They do not seem to make the link between having a job and surviving. To them, workers are disposable. They think of workers as human resources, something that employers can dig up when they need them and dump when they do not need them anymore. They forget that, before we are resources, we are human. We are not units of the economy but members of society, and when an employer takes on an employee they also take on an obligation to treat that employee fairly. That is the basis of unfair dismissal laws. That does not mean that employees do not have obligations as well. But employees cannot be traded like goods and chattels; they are not slaves. This legislation deals with that group of employees who have been seen to have the least rights when it comes to termination.The original act sets out a minimum period of six months employment for casual employees to be considered permanent and able to seek protection against unfair dismissal. The 1996 Workplace Relations Act changed the time of employment to 12 months. The position of Labor members is that the time should be six months. Members opposite might argue that the difference between six months and 12 months is not that much, but I can assure them that it is a very important difference. In fact a good case can be made for making the exclusion period three months, as it is for permanent employees. It is here that we need to look at the nature of casual employment. By far the most important issue with long-term casual employment is the lack of honesty on the part of employers. For many casual employees their working life is often a matter of waiting by the phone to see if they will be called in for work. Casual employment is widely used in the retail and service industries, where wages are low for both workers and supervisors.Managers are not well paid and tend to lack training in human relations and supervision. They also lack training in workplace law and frequently breach award and other legal conditions of employment. It is common for supervisors to play favourites when it comes to giving extra shifts or more convenient shifts to certain employees. Some employees may be punished by not being given shifts at all. Employees may suffer from unlawful discrimination as a result of the practices of poorly trained supervisors. We should also remember that we are often dealing with young employees or women with poor English skills and with little knowledge of their rights in the workplace. With some exceptions, few casual employees belong to trade unions. And, if I might be critical of some unions, I believe casual employees should have a scale of fees which more closely reflects the differences in levels of pay between full-time and casual part-time employees. When you consider that a young casual employee may only earn a small fraction of what a full-time employee earns in that industry, a scale of membership fees which reflects that fraction would seem to be a fairer arrangement and one that could attract more casual employees to join trade unions for coverage.As I was saying, though, the most important issue is honesty on the part of employers. Casual employees are often employed on the promise of certain shifts and certain hours of employment each week. By the nature of their work, casuals are used to fill the gaps in the workplace and to cater for busy trading times. Most casuals understand—even if they do not like it in practice—that employers give some preference to permanent employees. But what is hard to accept are practices which favour one casual employee over another and practices where casual employees are kept in the dark about the trading conditions of the employer. I have often heard of the complaint from a casual who, when they have called in to see if any shifts were coming up, was told that things were slow and there was no work available. That casual later finds out that another casual has been getting all the work. Even allowing for the discretion of the employer to decide who will work and when, it is easy to see that some casual employees would feel that they were not being treated fairly. It all comes back to employers being honest with casual employees. They get caught out in the end and it does lead to conflict among a lot of employees. This is an important factor when it comes to the termination of casual employees. As I said, there is a difference between a six-month exemption period and a 12-month exemption period for unfair dismissal. You would think that an employer would be able to tell after six months—they should be able to tell after six months—whether a casual employee was performing well on the job and, most importantly, was reliable. Why can't the employer be honest enough to make the casual employee permanent after six months rather than take a further six months to make that decision? It is unfair to casual employees to have to wait for a full 12 months before they are considered to be permanent employees.The other part of this dishonesty amounts to nothing less than exploitation of casual workers. It is not uncommon for some employers to deliberately attempt to get around the effect of unfair dismissal laws by employing casuals on a short-term basis and rolling over staff so that they never achieve the full 12 months of continuous employment. One thing you have to say about a six-month period of exclusion is that it makes such artificial arrangements less attractive to employers and should help to reduce this unfair practice. For genuine casual employment, however, six months would take the employment beyond most seasonal employment contracts and should encourage greater honesty in the employment arrangement. As I said at the beginning of this speech, casual employees are just as dependent on employment as permanent employees. We cannot dismiss protection of this valuable section of the work force on the assumption that these jobs do not matter.Casual employment provides great benefit to employers and provides valuable jobs for employees. What is needed is some basic honesty on the part of employers when dealing with casual staff. Any honest employer, large or small, would have no trouble working with a six-month exemption period for casual employees, but that would not stop members opposite from carrying on about it. As I said at the beginning, any measure that enhances the rights of workers gets members opposite barking mad. Mention the words `workplace relations' and the government benches are like a dog pound on the night of a full moon. If government members actually went out and spoke to people in the real world, they would soon find that there was very little support for this bill in the wider electorate.It is quite obvious that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations wants to beat up this issue to enhance his own career. As the shadow minister stated in his speech on the bill, there is no demand from employers for the changes made in this bill. As he said, only 5.6 per cent of employers in the July 2002 Yellow Pages small and medium business survey mentioned unfair dismissal laws, among other things, as a barrier to hiring new staff.To bring members opposite back to reality, let me give them the results of a survey of voters in the Fowler electorate. In September I sent out a survey which included the question: do you think the government should take away the right of people who work for small businesses to claim that they were unfairly dismissed? Although that question referred to unfair dismissal laws for small business, I think we can fairly say that the response would be the same on the issue of unfair dismissal of casual employees. The result of a survey of 2,000 voters in my electorate was that only 19 per cent supported the government, and 81 per cent wanted to keep the current unfair dismissal laws. That is the reality of this debate, and that is what members opposite need to be aware of. The minister for workplace relations can run around the country talking about unfair dismissal, but he will find that the great majority of Australians support the protection of workers' rights. He will also find that they do not want those rights to be taken away. Once you give people something, you can never take it away from them, and that applies to casual as well as full-time employees. That is the reality that members opposite need to be aware of. They need to get out and talk to real people—the ones who will be affected by this bill, of which there are so many. I say to government members: a dose of reality would do them all the world of good.10:48:0010088Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise to support this Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 because of my interest in helping our businesses and our producers to regain some of the competitive elements for their successful continuation. The capacity to rapidly engage staff to meet short-term needs has been a fundamental requirement of many successful regionally based enterprises. Due to the urgency of the finalisation of these bills, I will try to cut short my contribution, although it will be rather difficult after hearing some of the debate by the opposition. We do not need people to go out and listen; we need people to go out and get experience as an owner and operator of a small business. This is something that is obviously lacking on the opposition side of the House.In regional Australia, employer-employee negotiations often involve a myriad of considerations, only some of which are articulated. Much is taken for granted and dependent upon each party showing good faith. With the passage of time, and as individuals in the two groups develop in the working relationship, each of them—not just the employer but also the employee—might seek to vary the initial basis of engagement through a variety of means. However, from time to time the expectations of one or the other might fall short of the mark, the task may no longer be required or industry conditions may change. In each of these circumstances, and in many other similar scenarios, the need may arise for termination of the services of an employee, which is something that most business employers throughout Australia have, unfortunately, experienced.As a former owner of a small business—and my son continues that small business operation, which employs between 20 and 25 people—let me assure you that the termination process is rarely pleasant for either the employer or the employee. The proposed measures seek to provide more certainty in a challenging labour market and an extremely competitive business environment. It is very obvious, from the contributions that have come from the opposition, that they have had absolutely no employer experience prior to coming into this House, where they are paid to work, and gaining perhaps a couple of employees. That is a sad indictment on the speakers to this bill. This bill will restore for businesses the previous level of protection from unfair dismissal claims from short-term casual employees in the farming and the small business sectors; however, it will not diminish the ability for genuine unfair dismissal to be prosecuted. The current system continues to burden small Australian businesses with unreasonable costs and regulation, with no regard to productivity or circumstances of individual business. Sustaining a six-month casual employee exemption would only increase, not reduce, the unfair dismissal burden on our businesses and producers across this nation.In regional Australia, where casual employment is a regular and valued feature of rural and small businesses, many of the job opportunities exist for short periods of time throughout a seasonal pattern across quite specific areas, including our citrus, horticultural, fruit-packing and other industries. Using very flexible arrangements, employees are often engaged for specific tasks within a growing and harvesting cycle each year, depending on the prevailing seasonal conditions. It is important that these industries continue to be allowed to engage employees under these conditions. Look at the drought we are experiencing across Australia, particularly in my electorate of Riverina and in New South Wales in general. The opposition members here from New South Wales are showing their ignorance of how country communities work and of how country people retain viability. How do you think this bill impacts on the farmer who is starting to harvest and finds he has no grain yield? Does he have to continue to employ a casual worker and exacerbate his own financial position by continuing to pay that person, rather than being able to negotiate with that person on the basis that he could not determine what his season was going to deliver in terms of employment and his own viability? That is why it is essential for the opposition to understand that this is not about everybody being able to get a job in McDonald's or KFC or Burger King or Hungry Jack's or anywhere like that in city areas. This is about people being able to get jobs in rural and regional areas where opportunities for employment are affected by the seasonal impacts on crops. The National Farmers Federation believes the exclusion of casual employees in this manner is essential for the continued efficient operation of the agricultural industry. Many subsectors within that industry employ large numbers of casual, itinerant workers in order to meet changing demands. These jobs are all dependent on the weather. Sometimes, in some areas, these are the only job opportunities, for employer or employee. The service and agricultural industries rely heavily on casual workers due to the fluctuations in work and the seasonal timing of work. For industries that experience peaks and troughs, casual employment is an essential tool in successful business management.The harvesting seasons for horticultural produce can be highly variable. The majority of growers and producers in the Riverina depend on casual labour to harvest their crops. This source of employment is a huge boost for the communities in my electorate, providing much-needed employment for locals and also attracting visitors to our region, including many overseas travellers on working visas. The member for Fowler talked about casuals sitting by their phone waiting for it to ring so they can get an opportunity for a job. My producers do not have the luxury of having people waiting by their phones to get casual employment. Unfortunately, they cannot get Australians to provide their work force; they cannot access a work force. Many times they are left with crops rotting on trees, in the ground or on vines simply because there was no access to casual employment at the time.For the agricultural sector, the greatest influence on the length of the season, whether it be for produce or crops, is the weather. The season also determines how many times plants are picked over—and that means how many times you can re-engage casual employees. In a good season, a single plant may continue to produce for a long period of time, enabling more pickings. The opposite occurs if the season is poor or if rain interrupts picking or causes periods when produce is not picked for days, thereby causing wet fruit to rot. When that happens they do not have the opportunity for re-picks and therefore for the re-engagement of casual employees. Workers engaged for the season are usually itinerant, casual employees who are paid a fixed sum per bin or bucket provided. Workers are more than aware that the work will end when the season ends; they understand the issues of casual employment. Workers are more than aware that the agricultural industry, which is the backbone of this country, depends on their work and that much of their work depends on conditions that are outside the control of the employer. Producers should also be free to employ additional casual staff to supplement a small existing work force, thereby offering employment opportunities for those people who may not need ongoing casual employment but want employment just for the time being.Due to an economic downturn, many producers have recorded a decline in employment, with many now employing only casual employees. No firm should be discouraged from employing any worker. That is something that this amendment will correct. The regulation excludes casual employees from accessing termination of employment remedies unless they have been working for their employer on a regular and systematic basis for at least 12 months—and this is sensible when you look at what happens in rural and regional Australia, rather than just the impact on city people—and they have a reasonable expectation of continuing employment with the same employer. The exclusion ensures that businesses have the flexibility they need to hire short-term casuals without worrying about dismissing proceedings if it turns out that the employee is not needed permanently. This may not always be because of bad feeling and disharmony within the relationship; it may simply be because the season has produced less need for employment than had been expected at the time of engagement. This government cannot reinstate the full casual exclusion through regulation; this requires changes to the act. This bill will move the short-term casual exclusion out of the regulations and into the act and restore its full scope. Casual employment provides many young people with jobs, allowing them to earn an income while still studying at school or tertiary level. I wholeheartedly support that. However, 65 per cent of all casual employees are aged between 15 and 19. This bill will further encourage employers to hire young people and students who rely on casual work to continue their studies and to gain their first entry into the work force. It might not necessarily mean an ongoing position or an ongoing casual position—but this might be not only because the employer requires that, but that is what the employee requires as well.Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show strong growth in casual employment over the past 15 to 20 years. The figures show that casual employment more than doubled from 848,300 in 1984 to 1,931,700 in 1999, which is an increase of 117 per cent. Our casual workers now represent more than 27 per cent of Australian employees. In my electorate casual employment enables young people to move freely in and out of jobs and to move through different industries.In summary, these amendments provide a clear indication to business that this coalition government understand, that they have heard industry requests for further consideration of issues that have previously prejudiced the expansion of our work force and that they have developed these amendments to address those concerns. I continually speak on fair termination and unfair dismissal in this House because I wholeheartedly believe that the existing legislation is an impediment to employment opportunities for Australian people. It is not just the cities but also the country areas that we need to look at. This coalition government have experience in employment factors and have experience in being employers. Gauging by this debate, there is obvious neglect of that experience by the opposition. I suggest that this bill should be adopted in the House in order to give everybody a clear and concise understanding of what they might be able to achieve in the future as a business, as an employer and as an employee.11:01:0010090Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—This is yet another government bill designed to make it easier to sack workers. Like a series of bills before it, this legislation has an Orwellian title—in this case, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002. Yet this bill will allow employers to unfairly terminate workers. Others before it included the Workplace Relations Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999, which hacked away at the working conditions of Australian families and at the right of workers to collectively bargain. Some might remember the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998. The unfair dismissals bill was changed to the Orwellian Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill when the government moved to lift the definition of a small business from 15 to 20 employees, under which the legislation would allow small business to unfairly dismiss workers. The Orwellian tendencies of this government have continued with this, the `fair termination' bill, which attacks the most vulnerable in our work force, namely casual employees.I ask the question: what is on the agenda for next year? What Orwellian legislation will be on this government's agenda for next year? I suggest we might ponder these possibilities: the Fair Dismissal (Bringing Families Together) Bill will come in early next year; or the Honey, They Shrunk My Pay Packet Bill; or perhaps the Unpaid Maternity Leave (You're Sacked) Bill. After the government tries to get those through, there might be the Workplace Relations (Picking on the Vulnerable) Bill or the Workplace Relations (Confrontation in Automobile Plants) Bill—introduced no doubt by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and his colleagues the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and the Minister for Trade, all of whom have commented in the last few months that they would like nothing better than to have a fight with the union movement in the automobile industry. As a result of the Cole royal commission we might have the Royal Commission (Fitting up the CFMEU) Bill or, finally, the Directors' Bonuses (Entrenching Privilege) Bill. I await with great anticipation more Orwellian titles in this government's ideological pursuit of its agenda to tear away at the working conditions of Australians. Make no mistake, that is what the government is trying to do yet again here today. On the Notice Paper is a series of bills going to the Senate under the guise of fairness and under the guise that they are somehow trying to improve the living standards of Australian workers. Yet each and every one of them constitutes an attack on working conditions, pay and the right of workers to collectively bargain. But they are all Orwellian titles. No-one in the general community is fooled by this government's rhetoric or by its changing the title of the bill from unfair to fair. They will not fall for any suggestion that the government is doing anything other than ripping away at working conditions—in this case, those of the most vulnerable in the work force: casual employees.We need to understand that casual employees are in a most precarious situation. They have no right to paid leave and no right to paid holidays. If this legislation were passed they would have lessened rights to recourse to unfair dismissal laws, and that is exactly what this government wants to see happen. In 2000 there was a groundbreaking case in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission called the Metals Casuals case, during which the commission was presented with a lot of evidence on the status of casual employees. The evidence showed that, despite the fact that most casuals are entitled to a loading of 20 per cent to compensate them for the lack of paid leave, sick leave and so on, many received wages lower or not much higher than their permanent counterparts. That case resulted in the commission raising the loading for casual employees from 20 to 25 per cent, but the commission's decision was limited to workers in the metal engineering industries. To his credit, when commenting on that decision the chief executive of the Australian Industry Group, Bob Herbert, 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.So good on Bob Herbert for making that observation. Work has been done by the OECD to examine the employment protection legislation of all Western developed nations. In 1999 the OECD compared the standard of employment protection legislation in those countries and ranked them from one to 26, with one being the least strict and 26 being the most strict. Where does Australia rank? It ranks fourth—that is, amongst the least strict in terms of protections for workers. That work shows that there is very little protection for workers in this country, especially casual workers, compared with the other 26 OECD countries. What is the government proposing to do in response to that? It wants to strip away even further these protections by extending the period of probation for casual employees under which they may be sacked, thus preventing their coverage by the unfair dismissal laws for 12 months instead of six months.In 1994 Labor introduced an exemption for casual employees engaged for a short period of time. In Labor's view, a short period of time is six months, not 12 months. But in 1996 this government broadened the exclusion to 12 months and today it is seeking to entrench that position in legislation. Six months is more than ample time for an employer to make an assessment of an employee in terms of his or her reliability and contribution to the workplace. We hear time and time again from the government that no-one on this side of the parliament has had any experience in small business. I ran a small business for several years before coming into parliament and I know that, if I put on an employee for six months, I would have a pretty good idea about the reliability of that employee and the contribution that employee was making. I would not need 12 months to form that judgment. Let us see what is happening in this country in relation to the casualisation of the work force. In 1982 there were 700,000 casual employees in Australia but, by the turn of the century, there were no longer 700,000 but 2.1 million casual employees. Those casual employees now represent more than one-quarter of the labour force. Middle-income Australia is disappearing with the casualisation of the work force. Just 700 new middle-income jobs have been created in the last three years compared with 462,000 low-paid jobs. Australia has one of the lowest growth rates in high-skilled jobs and the highest growth rate in low-skilled jobs. We rank 16th out of 21 OECD countries in the growth of high-skilled jobs and first in the growth of low-skilled jobs. Casual and part-time work is obviously replacing full-time work, with around three-quarters of all jobs created in the last few years being part time. Of all OECD countries, Australia now has the second highest rate of part-time jobs in proportion to total jobs.Under present trends and present government policy settings, the casualisation of the work force is expected to accelerate, not slow down. The Workforce 2010 projections prepared for the Australian Labor Party forecast jobs in the 16-hour to 34-hour categories to grow at more than double the rate of conventional full-time jobs. At the same time, jobs involving work of more than 50 hours a week are forecast to grow at a rate similar to casual and part-time jobs. This says that balancing work and family life is becoming increasingly difficult, and parents rightly worry about the quality of jobs that their children will be able to obtain in the future.Improving the availability and quality of work are core Labor objectives. I therefore want to comment on the sort of society that this government is creating with its emphasis on the casualisation of the work force and its legislative changes, which are designed to encourage even further casualisation of the work force. It is clear that the government is intent on taking Australia down the low road to low skills and low wages. Labor is fundamentally different; we wish to take the Australian community along the high road to high skills and high wages. We wish to travel the high road; the government is travelling the low road. It is tearing away at the social fabric of this country, it is entrenching privilege and it is entrenching underprivilege.When I came into parliament, in my first speech and on a number of occasions since then, I rang the alarm bells on the problem of widening inequality in this country. But the government's response has been that inequality has not really been widening or, even if it has—maybe it is a bit—that is not a bad thing because everyone is better off anyway. That is the government's response, but it is untrue. Everyone is not better off. Yet the tactic of the government and right-wing commentators, who dominate most of Australia's newspapers and radio stations, is to label any Labor MP who criticises widening inequality as some sort of class warrior practising the politics of envy.Labor politicians and trade unionists are not the only targets of this new political correctness that rails against speaking out against widening inequality. There is a surprising target in the United States. Professor Paul Krugman is one of the world's pre-eminent economists. In a recent feature article in the New York Times—and I would encourage everyone in the parliament to read this article—he speaks of widening inequality in the United States. The article is entitled `The disappearing middle'. Professor Krugman laments:My sense is that few people are aware of just how much the gap between the very rich and the rest has widened over a relatively short period of time. In fact, even bringing up the subject exposes you to charges of `class warfare' and the `politics of envy'. And very few people indeed are willing to talk about the profound effects—economic, social and political—of that widening gap. Paul Krugman, one of the pre-eminent economists in the world, is talking about the widening inequality in the United States and the political correctness that has descended on the place which charges anyone like him with engaging in the politics of envy for daring to even raise these issues. Professor Krugman has warned that the market has failed to produce socially desirable outcomes in the United States. He points out, for example, that poor citizens of Sweden—that great conservative bete noire—are much better off than poor Americans, that life expectancy in Sweden is greater than in the United States, that infant mortality is half the US rate and that illiteracy is much less common in Sweden. Ponder these basic figures: while the average salary in the United States has risen in real terms by only 10 per cent over the last 30 years, the real average annual remuneration of the top 100 CEOs in the United States has risen from $1.3 million to $37.5 million—that is, in 30 years it has risen from 39 times the pay of an average worker, which you would say is a pretty high multiple, to more than 1,000 times the pay of an average worker. In other words, in the United States the very, very rich have gotten much, much richer.Krugman describes this explosion in inequality and the astronomical wealth accumulation of the top one per cent of Americans as a return to the gilded age of the robber barons of the 1920s. He laments the passing of what he calls the `Great Compression' following the New Deal, where there were moral restraints on corporate excesses and where the word `fair' was not a dirty word. He blames self-indulgent boards for giving company executives fat packages of share options that are carefully hidden from shareholders.Does this sound familiar? As in America, Australia's middle is disappearing. As I said, over the last three years just 700 middle-income jobs and 462,000 low-income jobs have been created. Despite the Prime Minister's boast of a `better than golden age' of productivity growth, we have seen this hollowing out of middle Australia. The concern is not just that the middle is disappearing, it is also about what is happening to those on lower incomes, to the underprivileged. The fact is that 800,000 children are growing up in households where no parent is working. Let me repeat that: 800,000 children in Australia are growing up in households where no parent is working. The Prime Minister says everything is fine and boasts of this golden age. The reality is that the government is entrenching both privilege and underprivilege, and the Prime Minister's cheer squad applauds all the way. The Australian Chief Executive of the International Chamber of Commerce, Martin Cox, defends exorbitant executive salaries in these terms:Instead of moralising about greedy executives politicians should sharpen the competitive edge by deregulating takeovers and mergers, and opening up the economy to foreign investment. More fundamentally, they should move away from the politics of envy.It sounds very familiar, doesn't it? It is the exact rhetoric used by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the entire frontbench on the government side. Whenever we raise questions about widening inequality and underprivilege in this country, they say, `You're just practising the politics of envy; you're engaged in class warfare,' because they do not want this debate in Australia. The right-wing cheer squad, the columnists in all the newspapers, agree with them. As soon as we raise these concerns, we are told, `It is not correct; it is politically incorrect for you to do it because you're practising the politics of envy and you're engaging in class warfare.' This government supports share option schemes for company executives and has even floated the idea of making them tax deductible so that low-income taxpayers have the opportunity to contribute to the already bloated salaries of company executives. But to question this new establishment is to practise, of course, the politics of envy.This new political correctness that has descended on Australia is saying to anyone who questions it: you don't dare question the order of things. Labor does question the order of things. Labor does question the establishment. Labor does question the Liberal way and it will fight against the Liberal way—that is, the Liberal way of one set of tax rules for the rich and another set of tax rules for the poor; the Liberal way of one system of health care for the rich and another system of health care for the poor; the Liberal way of one system of education for the rich and another system of education for the poor. Labor will fight against the Liberal way and Labor will fight for the Labor way—that is, the Labor way of high skills and high wages; the Labor way of decent working conditions. Labor will oppose government legislation that continues to rip away at the working conditions of Australian workers and their capacity to bargain collectively. Labor will fight for the Labor way of affordable education for all Australians. Labor will fight for the Labor way of affordable health care for all Australians. Labor will fight against the dismantling of Medicare by stealth. 10000Barresi, Phil (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Barresi)—The member is digressing from the bill.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—We will fight against the Liberal way, which is to rip away the working conditions of Australian families. Mr Deputy Speaker, that is what this legislation does. It rips away at the working conditions of Australian families by reducing their rights to recourse against unfair dismissal.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—Which is what this bill intends to do.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—That is what it intends to do. It is not called the unfair termination bill; it is called the fair termination bill—it says it is fair to rip away at the working conditions of Australian workers. The bills are all Orwellian titled. The Labor way is affordable education and health care for all Australians and not just for the privileged few. It is a Labor tradition, a great Labor tradition, and in the great Labor tradition these things are worth fighting for.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have to remind the member of the bill before the House. The member's time has expired.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—It hasn't. Look at the light.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member actually sat down.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—You told me it had expired!11:21:0010094Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise to speak to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002. What an extraordinary contribution from the previous speaker, the member for Rankin. I am very pleased to hear that he has run a small business, because he is one of the very rare people on the opposite side of the House who has. I was starting to feel hopeful that he would have a bit of an understanding of running small businesses. I have been involved in a number of family businesses, including in the restaurant and hospitality industry, which probably has one of the highest casualisation rates of any industry in this country. The previous speaker must have some sort of visionary powers that make him able to work out within six months whether an employee is up to scratch or fits the bill.It was interesting to hear the previous speaker speak about equality and inequality and say that all this bill was doing was causing inequality out there and depriving people in Australia of a job. I just want to inform him of some figures. Recently, research released by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne showed that state and federal unfair dismissal laws cost small and medium businesses $1.3 billion each year and have contributed to the loss of some 77,000 jobs. The Labor Party speak about flexibility in the marketplace and creating jobs for people, but effectively they have destroyed the ability of people to get jobs out there in the marketplace because of their rejection of our previous unfair dismissal bills on 22 occasions.This bill is about fairness—ensuring that we have fairness in termination of employment and promoting the creation of jobs for Australian workers. What it does is to create certainty. I dispute what the members opposite have said about it creating uncertainty. It provides more certainty for employers and employees. According to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Australia is the 16th largest economy of the world, and that has been achieved through a number of measures. It has been achieved by change and growth and by focusing on productivity. In response, Australian business has been able to implement strategies that have supported growth in Australian markets—and I see that the Minister for Trade is sitting at the table—and encouraged a large number of Australian companies to export to markets abroad. This growth has meant an increase in small businesses by a rate of about 11 per cent since November 1999. This bill will restore to businesses protection from dismissal claims by short-term casual employees. I do agree with the members opposite that casual employment has grown. In the last 15 to 20 years, it has grown by about 117 per cent. Casual work is very common amongst young people and particularly amongst women. In my days of working in the restaurant industry, many of the university students who worked for us relied on casual waiting jobs. I know that Peter Botsman is sometimes mentioned in the House by the Labor Party as a very eminent person, and he had experience working in my family's restaurant. Some greats of football and rugby league have also worked there. A number of industry and business leaders have worked in various casual jobs through their university days and, effectively, the Labor Party is stopping those people from having that accessibility to and flexibility in those casual jobs. This bill clearly provides stability in the workplace.It is important that casual employment is maintained. Prior to 1994, no Commonwealth legislation dealt with the termination of employment, except in regard to some public sector employment. There was no avenue for sacked workers covered by state laws to obtain access to the federal system if the state system failed to provide an adequate remedy. A feature of the Industrial Relations Reform Act 1993 was that relief was available to sacked workers if the termination of employment was either harsh, unjust or unreasonable, indicating unfair dismissal; or based on age, race or gender, indicating unlawful dismissal.The Labor Party first introduced exclusion of short-term casuals from termination of employment remedies in 1994. These particular provisions were largely unchanged until 1996 when the government, with the support of the Democrats, amended the regulations. The changes required casuals to work for their employer for a minimum period of 12 months, as opposed to six months, before they could make an application for dismissal. This was an amendment to regulation 30B(3). Although section 170CC(1) of the 1993 act was amended in 1994 and in 1996, the act continued to provide that regulations existed to exclude employees from unfair termination provisions of the principal act in the following circumstances: where the worker had been engaged for employment for a specific task; where the engagement of the worker was on a casual basis for a short period; or, where the worker was serving a probationary or qualifying period that had been determined in advance.In November last year, the Federal Court ruled regulations excluding short-term casual employees from making unfair dismissal applications as invalid. The case in question concerned a challenge to the dismissal of a 16-year-old employee who had been employed for less than 12 months as a casual employee under the organisation's national enterprise agreement. The Federal Court found that the employee's employment status, based on the present wording of the regulations, ought to have been determined at the date of termination.There have been a number of responses from industry groups, and the one that I want to mention in the House today is from the Australian Hotels Association. They certainly would have one of the most casualised work forces out there. They represent some 250,000 Australians and recently they called on the federal government to urgently amend the legislation and regulations to ensure casual employment is treated as just that—casual employment. Women and younger workers do prefer casual employment because of the casual aspects of it. In the short time available to me, I want to point out that it is important that this bill moves the short-term casual exclusion from regulations and places it into the act. It is important to also note that the exclusion was first introduced by the Labor Party in 1994 by the then industrial relations minister, the Hon. Laurie Brereton. That would have been termed as invalid, based on the recent Federal Court decision. The bill before us today will restore a level of confidence and protection for businesses from dismissal claims prior to the Federal Court's decision. If we reject this bill today, we send a message to businesses that the rights and liabilities of employers and employees in the casual labour market will be uncertain and lacking clarity. One way of achieving clarity is to ensure that those exclusion provisions are easy to understand and easy to access. The bill will move certain exclusions currently in the regulations out of the regulations and place them in the act. It will also mean that people wanting to access information on those exclusions will only have one piece of legislation rather than two pieces of legislation. It is important that that does occur.I want to place on the record my support for this bill. If we continue to grow as an industrialised nation, we need to ensure that we have a workplace relations environment that encourages employment. The members opposite do not encourage employment, and I mentioned the figures previously quoted by a number of sources. The members opposite encourage uncertainty and suggest that we make it harder for people to get jobs in this country. It is important that we continue to promote employment growth and to open up opportunities, not stifle them, as those on the opposite side would want us to do. It is important that we do not marginalise young people and that opportunities be available to women, to those people who want to access the casual workplace market and to those people who are unemployed and have low levels of education. Casual work is very important for all those groups of people. This government is about promoting opportunities regardless of where people live and regardless of their circumstances—whether they are in a rural location or in the cities. Since coming to office, the coalition government has attempted to pass a number of small business exemptions to unfair dismissals. The ALP have voted against unfair dismissal proposals on 22 occasions. All they do is stifle the debate and stifle opportunities for Australian workers. They create uncertainties out there in the marketplace. It is they, not those of us on the government side, who are widening inequality in this country. If we want Australia to continue to grow, to experience the very positive growth rates that we have had and to withstand the global downturns that we seem to have withstood very well, we need to provide as many opportunities as possible to encourage employment. I urge everyone in this House to support this bill.11:31:0010096McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I can assure the member for Petrie that the opposition will be voting for neither the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 nor any other workplace relations propositions that the government puts forward. This bill has the fingerprints of former minister Reith all over it, even down to the Orwellian language in the title. The newspeak title of this bill is the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002. Really, it should be called the `unfair termination' bill. This is one of the government's infamous bills dealing with employees. The dismissal of workers is a negative subject, but one to which this government seems to be addicted. The government might try to disguise the intent of its legislation by giving it an Orwellian title like `fair termination', but we all know that `unfair termination' would be a more appropriate name.When you look at the number of bills currently on the Notice Paper that deal with workplace relations matters, you could be excused for thinking that the government was obsessed with the subject. There are about 10 government bills, including the one that we are debating today, which is quite a large proportion of the legislation program. All these bills seek to amend the principal act, the Workplace Relations Act 1996. As those of us who were here in previous parliaments are only too well aware, the government has failed on previous occasions to achieve amendments in an omnibus bill, so it is now trying to bite off smaller morsels by way of numerous bills, each one dealing with one or two issues, in the hope that the Democrats will support the government in the Senate. Fortunately, until now, the government has not been able to get the support of the Democrats. I hope that the Democrats will stand firm and will not support the minister's new strategy of handing up piecemeal proposals to try to take them slowly down the track to perdition. This particular bill deals with short-term casual workers and seeks to ensure that those who are under federal awards are excluded from seeking reinstatement following dismissal for misconduct. The government has another bill that will seek to put all casuals and all people who work for incorporated bodies under the federal umbrella, which will mean that, bit by bit, the government will close down people's options. The legislation we are debating today came about because the minister tried to get a bit too tricky for his own good. When he could not get his omnibus legislation through, he decided to put in place a regulation which sought to prevent short-term casuals from seeking reinstatement or compensation for dismissal. That was taken to court by the Shop Assistants Union and an employee of Kentucky Fried Chicken or one of its franchises. The employee, Mr Hamzy, succeeded in his action because the nature of his employment was regular, if not permanent, in the eyes of the court. The case hinged on the question: can a casual employee required to adhere to a regular roster still be considered short-term casual? The Federal Court found that the answer was no, that a requirement to work on a roster made the casual a regular employee, even if not permanent, and it disallowed the regulation at the end of 2001. One would think that made sense. If you are on a roster, you are not a casual; you are a regular employee. You come in day after day, week after week, you have a locker in the place and you are on a roster. You are not a casual in terms of what people know a casual to be. A casual is someone who comes in today and probably not again.The government then tried to rewrite the regulation, canvassing the possibility that such a casual could be re-employed on a series of contracts. That would mean you would be a casual today, but that that contract would be severed when you walked out the door and, when you came in tomorrow at the same time, you would be a casual again. The way former Minister Reith obsessed not only his successor but his department with this sort of newspeak attitude is unfortunate—that is, that you could reinterpret the English language to mean all sorts of things it did not mean, just so that you could disadvantage ordinary workers. That regulation is in place, but the government is seeking to clothe it in statutory authority.The Labor Party's amendments seek to restore protection for workers to the same level it was when we introduced this type of legislation originally, when we were in government. We are also opposed to the imposition of a permanently established filing fee, particularly the way the government wants to have that fee operate. It seems heartless and unjustifiably harsh to expect someone who has been unfairly dismissed from their job to have to pay an up-front fee when lodging an application for their case to be considered. It is bad enough to have lost your job but, if you believe that you have a case showing that you have been unfairly terminated, it is even more outrageous that you should have to pay to get into court to fight your case. The government may believe that the fee imposition will stop `frivolous' claims, as the minister said in his second reading speech. Indeed, his words were:The filing fee will discourage frivolous and vexatious claims while ensuring that genuine dismissal applications can be dealt with efficiently. The truth, as all of us in this chamber know, is that the vexatious person does not get deterred by a filing fee or by the barriers you put up; they go at it all the time anyway. The filing fee is about discouraging people who, having lost their job, do not have any money and, if they are not in a union, cannot make a claim. This is just a mechanism to shut the door to low-income workers or people who are poor. I am sure that it will not stop people who are vexatious or frivolous; it will just give a further knock to the ordinary worker who has a case but does not have the money. It discourages the weak and the vulnerable and it will not make any difference to the type of person who is normally likely to make a frivolous or vexatious claim—not that I think there are all that many of those people in the system. It is just the minister saying, `We'll exclude as many of them as we can to try and stop the few inappropriate ones that we think might be there.' This bill deals with some specific issues to do with casual workers, but I see it as part of the government's wider agenda of treating workers as meanly as possible. The general issue of unfair dismissals seems to have consumed the government. We have seen bill after bill after bill. We have seen Minister Abbott recently introduce legislation to take away the states' power to rule on unfair dismissals or small businesses that are incorporated. It appears he did not even have the courtesy to mention his intentions to the states before he announced the details of this proposed legislation. The government's proposals in that area have significant implications for the states and for their industrial tribunals. You would expect that such significant changes would have been discussed with the states and the possible ramifications fully explored before introducing these changes—and this is from a government that talks about cooperative federalism. In the past we have heard in this chamber the Prime Minister railing against the former Labor government, about how we did not see the states as partners et cetera. But here you have a minister who, on the Prime Minister's primary crusade of changing industrial relations, decides to just crash through without even having a discussion with the people who have primary carriage of the industrial relations laws in this country. Not only that, but we also have the minister for workplace relations using as the head of power the Commonwealth's ability to legislate under the corporations power. I recall that years ago the current Prime Minister thought people who used those sorts of stratagems were really disgraceful people. So it just shows how, in this particular philosophical argument, the Prime Minister is willing to jettison many of the principles he held in the past.One of the things the government should be considering, when telling us that they are running out of money and that the budget projections are not as good as they thought they were, is cost. Moving matters to the federal arena shifts costs from the states to the Commonwealth. Mr Abbott and his advisers have not even mentioned the cost implications. The infrastructure that will be needed at the Commonwealth level to replace the state systems will be costly. This is just a bid by the government to increase power at the Commonwealth level. Is there a widespread dissatisfaction with the way these matters have been dealt with at the state level? No. This is more a case of blind ideology. The truth is that this government does not like ordinary working people and it does not like workers in small businesses in particular. It claims to be a friend of small business but it is not a true friend. If it were, it would look at and listen to what small businesses really want, particularly small businesses out in the regions. I suspect that small businesses, particularly in the regions, want the flexibility to carry on their businesses as best they can. They want real assistance from the government in the form of reliable communications, decent and reliable transportation systems and support through other government programs. I do not think small businesses want to be tied up in more red tape, which the government is starting to do here. People are already unsure what system they are in now. There is going to be confusion and people will still apply to the state tribunals. They will still go down there and will find out when they get there that they do not have coverage. Rather than the government streamlining the system, it is creating more confusion. Any legislation put forward by the government in the field of workplace relations seems to emphasise the `problem worker'. The government says we have to have this phalanx of laws because: `There are those workers out there and they're all trouble. The workers are no good and that one deserves to be dismissed. We have to hide from them and challenge the unfair dismissal claim.' It is a very negative way to look at workplace relations. It is insulting to the business operatives as well, because most small businesses want to keep a harmonious relationship with their employees. They do not want to set up a `them and us' scenario. They want to deal fairly with their people and they want their people to have confidence in them. They do not want the government to make their employees think, `We've now got to side against the employer because they're the boss, and we heard the minister for workplace relations say that on the radio the other day.' One would hope that in this century we would have seen people adopt a more cooperative approach. That is what most unions and employers want to happen. It seems that the only person who has not learnt the lesson of cooperation is the minister for workplace relations—a bizarre fellow indeed. He was happy yesterday to be referred to as Chopper Read. He saw the only difference between them as being that he has big ears and Chopper Read has not. That is the mind-set of this minister. I do not think anyone in this place would actually like to be compared with Chopper Read or accept as a compliment the fact that the only difference between themselves and Chopper Read, a murderous individual, is that they have bigger ears than him. This is the bizarre approach of this minister. He even makes `Penthouse Pete' look a bit more reasonable. The problem we had with the former minister and now have with Minister Abbott is their confrontational approach. The irony of it is that they say the reason you have to have this confrontational approach is to crush unions. Unions have got past confrontation. The vast majority of union officials and unions in this country now are very responsible and understand that the only way their members will have work is if they work with employers to create growth. There are not the builders labourers federations around in this country anymore. They are not there. This minister wants to set up that conflict. He, in the same way as Peter Reith did, wants to return to the 1970s in terms of industrial relations. But they are the only ones who do. Most employers do not. Even some of the madder ones at the top of employer organisations say that what they want is cooperation. The unions say that all they want is cooperation. The person in the middle, the person who goes along to talk to employer groups and tells them that they have to fight with the unions, is Minister Abbott. Before him it was former Minister Reith. They should grow up. Minister Abbott should realise that he is now in a responsible position. He is not some undergraduate politician down at Sydney university caught up in the Cold War; he is a minister of the Crown responsible for a portfolio where he should be trying to encourage cooperation, not divisiveness. At least Peter Reith had the sense to object to someone trying to put a moniker on him that he never thought existed. To see Minister Abbott here yesterday accept with glee the fact that he and Chopper Read are one and the same is really, I think, the best indication of the mind-set and attitude of this minister. He is dangerous and, like Chopper Read, he should be put away. 11:47:0010099Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—I am delighted to speak in this debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 because this bill is all about jobs, jobs and more jobs for the people of Australia. The Howard government is all about jobs and creating more jobs. If the opposition continue to present as the member for Watson just did then they will be sitting on that side of the parliament for a very long time to come. This legislation is about providing confidence for business proprietors, protecting casual employees and, in particular, ensuring that casual employees continue to have secure employment. If employers in small business do not feel confident then job opportunities will be limited. This bill is all about that. The provisions of the bill before us are very important. They include imposing a filing fee for termination applications that are unnecessary and vexatious. We do not want vexatious and frivolous claims; we want only claims with merit. That is very important for job creation. The provisions also include the waiving of a filing fee where its imposition could cause financial hardship due to the regulations in the act. The bill seeks to include exclusion provisions from the regulations in the act—for example, exclusions that apply to probationers and non-award high-income earners. This bill is aimed at assisting those businesses that rely particularly heavily on casual labour. The bill will assist those businesses to continue to operate smoothly without fear of falling foul of the unfair dismissal laws. There is no doubt that this is important. It is important because it is going to create jobs. That is what this government is all about. The member for Watson's speech, in talking only about Chopper Read, is very indicative of where the opposition stand. Where are the policies of the opposition? They continue to be in a policy-free zone. I am glad that the shadow minister is in the parliament. If he can come up with some policies, he might be able to attract the interest of the people of Australia. But, at this stage, that is very unlikely. I will talk about small businesses specifically and the support that this bill has from organisations such as the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Hotels Association. They have publicly supported the change to the regulations contained in the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002. I have feedback from small business people in the electorate of Ryan that they strongly support the government and the amendments that are before this parliament. One of things I have done is tap into the small business community in Ryan. Small businesses are very important for the people of Australia because they provide jobs. The feedback coming to me as the federal member for Ryan, their local representative, is that the government are doing the right thing. We are consulting widely. The minister is doing a fantastic job. He is out there amongst small businesses. I noticed earlier that the member for Fowler talked about a survey she did in her electorate. I was very astonished by the replies she got from her survey. Obviously she did not survey small- and medium-sized businesses. That is where it counts. Let us talk to those at the coalface. Those Australians know exactly what is needed for their businesses to be prosperous and to be in a position to employ fellow Australians. This government is creating those opportunities. It is creating opportunities for small businesses to give those in the Australian work force the chance to improve their positions. The centrepiece of the coalition's policy has always been to allow employees and employers to negotiate improved pay and working conditions in return for improved productivity at the enterprise level. The amendments contained in this bill will help that to continue. I certainly encourage the opposition to come on board and to listen to the people of Australia. I hope that the shadow minister sitting over there, the member for Rankin, will listen to the people of Australia. If he does that he might, one day, in many decades to come, occupy ministerial leather. But that will be unlikely, I am sure, because this government is listening to the people of Australia, in particular to small businesses. Small businesses provide jobs and provide security of employment, and that is important. As I said, the member for Watson was previously talking about Chopper Read. If that is all he can come to this parliament and talk about then it is unlikely that the opposition will ever earn the regard, the respect and, at the end of the day, the votes and support of the people of Australia.The effect of this bill is to exclude casual employees from making claims for unfair dismissal or unlawful termination unless they have been engaged by a particular employer on a regular and systematic basis for 12 months and have a reasonable expectation of continuing employment with the same employer. I heard earlier the shadow minister, the member for Rankin, saying that six months contact with an employee would give an employer sufficient time to come to some conclusion about the reliability of that particular individual. Obviously the member for Rankin has not really had sufficient experience in small business to know that that is certainly not the case. It might be the case in a minority of situations, but the overwhelming majority of cases is that a year in contact and in engagement with individuals gives a small business proprietor a great opportunity to really form an impression about the quality of the individual.At the end of the day, it is the enterprising nature of these small business people that creates the jobs. They carry the risk. They have the full capacity and the full right to know and to judge those that they employ. No parliament, no member of this parliament and no government should take away that flexibility and that right, because it is those individual Australians that are carrying the risk with their small business. It is their money, and we should be supporting them in this parliament as fully as we can. Of course, in order for a worker to be sacked they have to have a job in the first place. The opposition should be concerned with job creation measures, just like this government is, not measures which are half-baked, which add to the uncertainty of the unfair dismissal laws and which contribute to the idea that the coalface of employment is out of the control of employers. If the opposition comes on board and supports this amendment, it will, I am sure, have some high regard in the Australian community. What has clearly been demonstrated by the opposition's position hitherto—which is to not support this bill, if the member for Watson is to be believed—is that it clearly has no understanding whatsoever of small business and the need for flexibility to cater to small business needs. This was indicated very recently when the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, in an interview with Maxine McKew on Lateline on 4 December 1996, said that unfair dismissal:... in the end has got nothing to do with small business—nothing to do with youth unemployment ...That clearly shows that the opposition has no idea what it is talking about. Clearly, small businesses also believe that very strongly.I want to talk about the small business advisory committee that I have set up in my electorate of Ryan. It is a unique initiative and has been very well received. We had enormous interest from the small business community when I called for expressions of interest from small business proprietors to come on board and to come together at meetings with me, as their federal member, to talk about the issues and to consult about the important areas for small business so that I could come back to this parliament and represent their views. Not surprisingly, in our very first meeting a consensus was reached that small business was very important and that unfair dismissal was a priority for us to address in this parliament—indeed, it was at the top of the list.I might just mention one of those committee members. Mr Terry Mendies is a very successful operator of a small business in the Ryan electorate, Harlequin Paints. He expressed a very real concern that the legislation we have should be tightened up and that we should in fact go down the path we are seeking to go down with this amendment. He talked about how he has the capacity to employ more casuals, but he is fearful that these casuals, if they come on board and they do not have some sort of guideline in which they can operate, will hijack his business, be in a position of undue influence and cause him financial hardship, when in fact he is doing a great favour to the local work force by providing opportunities for jobs. He is a small business operator at the coalface, and I would be delighted to invite the shadow minister, the member for Rankin, to come along and talk to this constituent of mine. He will give the member for Rankin a summary of what is really happening at the coalface. He is a small business operator that this government is listening to.I want to conclude on that note and again encourage those in influence in the opposition, like the shadow minister, to encourage their colleagues to support this bill. At the end of the day we are about jobs. All members of this parliament believe that it is our duty to provide secure employment opportunities for our fellow Australians, and the government are doing that very strongly and very clearly. That is why we are in government and that is why we will continue to be in government. I again encourage the shadow minister and his colleagues to support this amendment. Come on board, members of the opposition, and support this policy—because you certainly do not have any of your own.11:58:0010101Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The member for Ryan's contribution to the debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 confirms what a monumental lightweight he is. The contribution he just made was a fleeting reference to another bill which is actually not before the parliament at the moment. I say to the member for Ryan: when we do get to the bill that seeks to take away the rights of workers in small business—and he seemed to spend most of his time talking about small business while he waffled on for five or 10 minutes—you might like to prepare a speech that is a bit better than the one you just gave, because at least then it would be both relevant and a bit more entertaining. Unfortunately, the seat of Ryan no longer has the enthusiastic representation it had prior to the last election, which I can say is the first time in decades that it had a member of parliament that actually got out there and worked hard. It certainly has had a long history of Liberal sloths who are known more for their longevity in this place than for any contribution they have made to any policy issue. It would appear as though the current member for Ryan continues in that time-honoured fashion of Liberals in the safe bastion of the Liberal Party which is Ryan. The bill before us actually is not about small business—and those listening to the last speaker might be forgiven if they thought it was—although I might be tempted to touch on some of the matters that he raised. Many government members, when these issues of unfair dismissal in its various guises come forward, tell us that they must do this because it creates jobs. This is a new job creation concept that most Australians are unfamiliar with. This is where we create more jobs by sacking more people! This is where we create more jobs by saying to workers, `You may be sacked unfairly—that is, the boss has treated you unfairly in the way in which they have gone about dismissing you—but you have no rights whatsoever to redress because you have been dealt with unfairly.' That is what this law tries to do, to take away a right of workers in this country who are casual employees to access unfair dismissal laws.This government hops up and says that, by doing that, it is somehow going to create more jobs. I have to say that it might create more throughput through the jobs. I can imagine this revolving door as people go in and out of unemployment as they get dismissed. I can see this revolving door of activity happening, but I am not quite sure it would create one net job—except maybe for some of the government's labour market providers, these people that it has tipped money into as providers of labour market services for unemployed people. It might create a job or two for them, as we put more taxpayers' money into the pockets of some of those people. We have seen, in the last parliament, how some of that money gets used at Liberal Party fundraisers by the people who operate those schemes. This might be a useful thing for the Liberal Party to give some of its mates a bit more money. But, in terms of creating net jobs, this does nothing. In fact, none of the whole cluster of bills on unfair dismissal that this government rains on the parliament now—I think there are four on the Notice Paper at the moment—separately or together create a single job.This is a point, I should say, that even the former Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, Peter Reith, had to acknowledge. This is the minister who, of course, started this process of trying to take away the rights of workers in respect of unfair dismissals. When he was minister, he was asked specifically how many jobs it would create in small business if the government gets its unfair dismissal laws through the parliament. It was a question on notice, No. 2940, in the last parliament. This is what Minister Reith said at the time:(2) It is not possible to specify the number of small businesses which would directly benefit from the Government's proposed exemption from unfair dismissal laws for small businesses ...Those are Peter Reith's words. Every time one of the Liberal or National Party members in this place hops up and tells us that they are somehow going to create jobs by sacking more people, I say to them: go back and look at the words of none other than Peter Reith. When he was asked to tell this parliament on a question on notice, where he actually had to tell the truth about how many jobs it would create, his answer was—VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—Come on, Arch!ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I know, it is strange to have `Peter Reith' and `truth' in the same sentence. I understand that, member for Corangamite. It is an odd conjunction but, on this occasion, I think it is appropriate. On that occasion, when he was asked to explain how many jobs it would create in small business, his answer was that it is not possible to tell how many jobs would be created. The reason it is not possible to quantify it is that it does not exist. In fact, the proof of that is not just in the words of Peter Reith. The proof of that is in the words of the people in the small business sector whose references to this have been used and abused by Liberal prime ministers, ministers and backbenchers for some years now. When Rob Bastian was running COSBOA, the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, he made an off the cuff comment one day that he thought there would be 50,000 jobs created. We have heard this 50,000 jobs mentioned time and time again by none other than the Prime Minister, the current Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the former minister and a litany of Liberal Party members on the other side. Someone on the other side should ask Mr Bastian how he came by that number of 50,000. I suspect that they do not want to ask the question, because they know the answer. We have actually told them the answer in this place on about 45 occasions, every time this bill comes up. I had that discussion with Rob Bastian at the time that it was high on the agenda, and his advice to me was that it was a guess he made. I asked him where he got the information from. Was there any research? Was there any survey? Was there an estimate? Did he do a calculation, for example? Did he sit down and do a bit of guesswork calculation? Answer: no. No survey, no research, no calculator, no piece of paper—it was just a figure that, at the time, seemed to him to be fair enough. This figure which, at the time, he thought was just fair enough, has now become the gospel for Liberal and National Party members of parliament, and we will no doubt hear it in this debate. But that is the genesis of it. It is a concept without validation, this concept that the government tells us, which makes it easier for the boss to sack people—unfairly, I might add. We are not talking here about a legitimate dismissal. The point of this law is not to assist good business operators to be able to run their businesses and remove people who are doing the wrong thing; the point of this law is to say that a business person who has done the wrong thing and has sacked a worker unfairly in the eyes of the law can get away with it. That is what this bill does. Most casual observers and, I am sure, most Australian citizens would think that, when they elect governments to come into this parliament and make laws, the laws that the parliament makes would be there to protect and benefit most people in our society. That is a fair expectation of the Australian people upon all of us. As a casual observer, if you read the title, you might even think that is what this bill is about because, in typical Orwellian speak, the bill is called the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002.As we know, this bill is not about fair termination; this bill authorises employers across the land to sack casual workers without regard to process or fairness for those workers. Most Australians would be absolutely aghast to think that their government and this parliament would legislate to reduce their rights to fairness. By definition, that is exactly what this bill does. It is a nasty piece of work, like all of its related bits of legislation which have sought to do the same thing. The government persists with this legislation because they believe that it helps them with their small business constituency. There, the government have done their best to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. There, the government have done their best to tell employers that they have a problem when the employers actually do not believe that they have a problem.Why do I say that the employers do not believe that they have a problem? There are any number of surveys which have been done on this over the last six or seven years. Most of them, I have to say, are a bit like push polling. It is a bit like going to a worker and asking, `Do you think that you should be paid more money?' Everybody says yes. There are only a handful of legitimate surveys. As I have said on many occasions in this parliament, unquestionably the most authoritative—both in terms of its methodology and its sampling—was the survey conducted by the government called the Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey 1995. That survey was so large that it was a bit like a census; it actually took a couple of years for the data to be analysed. One of the questions that was asked in that survey of over 1,000 small workplaces bears directly on this issue before us. The question asked was: what were the reasons for not recruiting employees? Participants could respond to more than one issue so the percentages add up to more than 100 per cent. The largest response by far as to why they were not employing more people was that they did not need any more employees. You do not have to have a degree in rocket science to understand that; that is straightforward. In fact 66 per cent said that the reason they were not employing new employees was that they did not need any. That is a very sound business decision, I would have thought. The second highest response, with 23 per cent, was that new workers were not recruited due to insufficient work. I suppose that is another way of saying the same thing, really. Again, that is a sound business decision. Another six per cent of respondents said that they were not recruiting due to a lack of demand for the product that they were making. All of those were fairly predictable, sound reasons why a business would not employ more people.Did any of them say that they were not going to employ someone because there were unfair dismissal laws that frightened them away? The answer to that is: yes, some people did say that. How many people said that? The figure was 0.9 per cent. Less than one per cent of small businesses surveyed—and it is the biggest survey of small businesses done on this issue—identified unfair dismissal laws as a reason why they were not employing people. That was not in response to these current unfair dismissal laws, which are Liberal laws; that was in response to Labor's unfair dismissal laws, which, it has to be said, gave workers more rights and restricted employers even more than the current laws do. So even under Labor's laws, less than one per cent said that this was a reason why they did not employ anyone else. After some years of the Liberals doing their best to frighten the business community into believing that this is a problem—I have to say that Peter Reith was pretty good at that sort of stuff; he did his best to frighten employers and tell them that they had a problem—they actually convinced some employers that they did have a problem.I was interested in a survey done of what small business regarded as the most important issues facing them conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. ACCI are no friends of the Labor side of politics. Most of their key people are active supporters and members of the Liberal Party. They can usually be relied on as the government's mouthpiece in the business community—and they regularly function as such. But even ACCI's survey published in November last year—in which small businesses were asked to rank the top 10 issues confronting them—showed that unfair dismissal law came in as the fifth issue. It is a fifth order issue even when their right-wing mates in business go out and conduct a survey after six or seven years of them campaigning to tell business that they have a problem.If the government are fair dinkum about wanting to help business—and, in particular, small business—then they might actually like to look at their mate ACCI's survey. Their friends at the Chamber of Commerce and Industry identified the first four priority issues for small business. The first priority was the frequency and complexity of changes to tax laws and rules. Hello. I think they might be talking about the GST here, fellas! So the first and foremost issue as far as the business community is concerned, as surveyed by your mates in ACCI, is your taxes. The second issue was the level of taxation, and remember that this was in November last year. So if the government want to help business then they should forget about this mantra which they keep trotting out—without any facts—on unfair dismissal; they should fix up the tax system and relieve the burdens they are placing on the small business community. The third issue raised was telecommunications costs and the fourth issue raised was the complexity of government regulations. Those are the top four issues and all of them are directly linked to this government's policies. So if the government wanted to do something to actually address the problems confronting business, lift the burdens off their back and give them the opportunity to go about their work and employ more people then they would not play this game of cat and mouse over unfair dismissals; they would address what were the four most important issues for the business community as identified by none other than the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. When he introduced this bill the current Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations said:Last November, the Federal Court ruled invalid the regulations excluding short-term casual employees from making dismissal applications, on the technical ground ... I like the way he swept that aside on `technical grounds'. The technical grounds, Minister, were that your regulations were outside the law—that is, you sought to do something you did not have the power to do. That might be regarded as a technicality, but it might also be regarded as unlawful activity.This government, in the way it seeks to present arguments on issues, really does adopt an Orwellian approach to things. I have already mentioned that the title of this bill follows in the footsteps of that great reforming piece of legislation—I say that sarcastically—that Peter Reith introduced: his second wave. A lot of Australians will remember Peter Reith's second wave industrial laws; what they will not recall is that the official name for that bill was `more jobs, better pay'. There is not an Australian in the work force who believes Peter Reith was trying to give them more jobs and better pay when he introduced his second wave laws. This is how the government presents things.The minister said, `This is just a minor technicality we are seeking to overcome.' However, on reading the bill, the government is not only content to try to make legal what the courts have said is not legal—the things the government has done that the courts have said were outside the law—but it is trying to do it retrospectively. In his second reading speech, the minister said:These provisions will declare that, as far as possible, the rights and liabilities of employers and employees are the same as they would have been had the invalid regulations been validly made ...In this bill that is before the parliament, the government is seeking to have their error in law set aside. All of those people who today have a right to seek redress because they were unfairly dismissed will have that right taken away from them. It is retrospective. Even those people who have a case on foot will have those rights taken away from them by this bill.The government have rather generously said, `If you have already been to the industrial commission, and you have already had a decision made in your favour, we will not try to overturn the decision.' However, if you have a case for unfair dismissal before the Industrial Relations Commission today, this law would take away your right to continue with that case. What is more, if you have a case which you have not already started, that is just too bad, because this law will take away your right to pursue it.This is about the rights of these workers. Let me repeat: we are not talking about workers who have done the wrong thing and have been sacked; we are talking about workers who have been treated unfairly and wrongly by their employer and who, without this bill, would be entitled to some compensation. This parliament is being asked by this Liberal government to take away that right of those workers. These workers are the most vulnerable in our community—they are casual employees, whose rights are less than those of any other worker in the work force. This government seeks to punish the most vulnerable in a way that is unacceptable to most Australians.I would like to see government members talk about the substance of this bill and to explain how they will create jobs, rather than just saying that they will. I would like them to demonstrate to us that their constituents believe they should be in the parliament taking away the rights of workers to receive a payment if those workers have been unfairly—not properly, but unfairly—sacked. (Time expired)12:18:0010106Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002. One of the ongoing tensions between the Labor Party and the labour movement is balancing the rights of the workers versus the rights of the unemployed. Generally the unemployed do not get a look in because they do not pay their dues. The advantage for the Liberal Party is that, by not being held to ransom by any sectional interest, it is able to govern in the interests of the country. You can see that in the latest polls, which show that the Howard government is seen as the best manager of the economy not only by the population and an overwhelming majority of Liberal voters but also by a majority of Labor voters. I am very happy to stack up the government's record of reducing unemployment over the past six years. Since electorate specific figures have been collated, the unemployment rate in my electorate of Boothby has fallen from seven per cent in September 1998 to 4.7 per cent in June 2002. That is a 2.3 per cent drop in four years. In southern Adelaide, where my electorate is located, the teenage unemployment rate has fallen from 43.3 per cent in March 1996 to 22.8 per cent in October 2002—a halving of the teenage unemployment rate.This bill is very important to casual workers and to teenage workers. The bill aims to ensure fairness in termination of employment by restoring the exemption of short-term casual employees from termination of employment claims. Casual employment is an increasing choice of Australian employees as they balance work, family and other commitments. Importantly, many casual emloyees take these jobs as entry level jobs into the work force. They spend time in these jobs and then move on to jobs with higher remuneration.The bill seeks to restore for businesses the previous level of protection against dismissal claims that existed prior to a Federal Court ruling last year. In November 2001, the Federal Court—in Hamzy v. Tricon International Restaurants, trading as Kentucky Fried Chicken—ruled invalid the regulation excluding short-term casual employees from making dismissal applications. The case related to the fast food restaurant industry, which relies on casual employees and which many students and young people rely on for casual work. The full bench of the Federal Court disallowed regulations that meant that casual workers who were employed for less than a year were not covered by unfair dismissals. This meant that employers were suddenly exposed and vulnerable to claims from all casual employees hired for more than three months. The decision was on the legal technicality that the exclusion went further than allowed by the regulation making power in the act.Originally, before the November 2001 Federal Court decision, the regulations did exclude casual employees from termination of employment remedies unless they had been working for their employer on a regular and systematic basis for at least 12 months and had a reasonable expectation of continuing employment with the same employer. The Federal Court ruling placed an extra and quite unreasonable burden on a number of industry sector employers such as farmers and hoteliers. Farmers, for example, have highly seasonal crops which need harvesting throughout different times of the year. The cropping, picking and packing of fresh stone fruit can be variable and dependent on weather conditions. Some harvest seasons last longer than the probation period of three months for casual workers. The National Farmers Federation has argued that there should be scope to disengage these workers at the end of a season. Many of these workers will travel interstate to work in other states that have later seasons. Farmers see the non-exclusion of casual workers from unfair dismissal provisions as subjecting them to an overly bureaucratic regime for engaging seasonal and other casual workers.Interestingly, the exclusion for short-term employees was first introduced in 1994 by the then ALP industrial relations minister, the member for Kingsford-Smith. It has not changed substantially since then, except in 1996 when the government, with the support of the Democrats, amended the regulations from a minimum of six months to a minimum of 12 months. A survey of small business issued by the peak body for accountants, the CPA, in March this year showed that 42 per cent of small business did not feel confident that they knew how to dismiss staff in line with unfair dismissal laws. And 62 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 bill will move a provision imposing a filing fee for dismissal applications, which will be indexed to the CPI. This will prevent claims that are speculative, frivolous or vexatious. The exclusion of short-term casuals ensures that businesses have the flexibility they need to hire short-term casuals without worrying about dismissal proceedings if it turns out the employees are not needed permanently. Adding more risks and uncertainty to employment, especially for casuals, will have a detrimental effect on employment.The legislation is supported by numerous stakeholder groups, including the National Farmers Federation, which have members who know only too well what a bureaucratic nightmare it can be to employ workers to do seasonal work such as fruit picking or harvesting. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry stated in a media release in March this year:It would be wrong for the Federal Opposition to hide behind last year's Federal Court decision to water down the 12-month exclusion.It further said: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 ... A watering down of the five-year-old law will add more risks and deterrents to the employment of staff, in this case casuals.Of course we all know the Senate negatived this legislation earlier this year, which is the reason we are here again debating legislation that does no more than retain the status quo that has applied for the last five years. The Australian Hotels Association, the peak body of an industry which employs more than 250,000 Australians, also staunchly supports this legislation. Following the Federal Court ruling it stated: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.All this bill seeks to do is restore the law in relation to short-term casuals to what it was assumed to be before the decision of the full bench of the Federal Court. This government is about creating jobs. Business should not be deterred further from engaging casual staff. These staff help employers meet the peaks and troughs of business demands. These staff want and need employment, and their employment is an important contributor to the smooth running of business and industry in this country.12:26:0010107Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I am very happy to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2000. It is an extremely important bill for the parliament, for all the members in this place and for all the workers out there. One characteristic of the plight of government members speaking on this bill is that they have 20 minutes but they only take five or 10 because they have very little to say. Government members have come into this place to speak but they are not overly interested—they see this as just another process, another thing that you just pass through this House. But the majority, if not all, of the Labor speakers on this bill take their full 20 minutes because they have something to say about how this bill will affect workers in this country. Another characteristic of government members speaking on this bill is their lack of real comprehension about what is taking place out in the workplace. They talk about a range of issues and take a lot of time, but the majority are just making personal attacks on Labor members. Very few of them deal with the reality of what some employers do with regard to casual workers and how the casualisation of the work force is having a huge impact in our society.A characteristic of this bill is its title. I know a number of members have spoken on this, but you just cannot go past it. There it is, right at the start: the `fair termination' bill, as the government calls it. Well, calling it so does not make it so. This is just like the bill introduced previously into this House called the More Jobs, Better Pay bill: it was given that most inappropriate title—and calling it that did not make it so. What we see with this government is the constant changing of language, the `more is less', George Orwell type scenario, whereby if you just say it long enough and you change the words then people might believe you. Let me remind government members that people do not believe them, particularly the casual workers of this country who know that they will be the losers if the government gets to pass this bill. Quite simply, this bill has two main parts. One is to make it easier for employers to sack workers. It is definitely not about creating jobs. The second is to attach a fee for anybody who makes an application to seek some redress if they believe they have been unfairly terminated. Those are the guts of the bill. The government continue to say that this bill is about creating jobs. But, if we look closely at the bill, nowhere in it are any measures, any money or any mechanisms that would actually create one single job. We have heard many times in this place government ministers talking of a mysterious figure of 50,000 jobs that would be created. But just a moment ago we heard the most capable member for Brisbane talking about where that figure came from: it was just plucked out of the air. Somebody one day just sat down and said, `50, 000—why not? We could probably create 50,000 jobs out of this, so let's just get that figure out there.' It is a completely fallacious figure that has no basis in science or in anything else, yet it is now being taken as the government's official figure. They are saying that 50,000 jobs would be created overnight, almost instantaneously, if only Labor would pass their bill, if only Labor would get out of the road and let this bill through. Well, they kid themselves. Making it easier to sack workers does not create jobs—it is as simple as that.Again, I refer to what the member for Brisbane said, that this `might create more throughput'. More people might go through the turnstiles—they will be employed, sacked, re-employed and sacked; maybe even the same people—but that does not actually create any new jobs. It might provide more work for some mates of those on the Liberal side who run some of the agencies that would benefit greatly from this, but it will not create any new jobs. If the government is serious about creating jobs and understanding the casualisation of the work force in this new century, it should pass bills in this place that deal with those matters rather than pass a bill that just deals with sacking workers. That is all this bill is about: how to make it easier to sack a worker.The basis of being a casual, for people who may not know—and I think most people do—is being hired on a daily basis. That is the reality. If you are a casual you are hired in the morning and then rehired again the next day. In fact, some casuals do not know whether they are going to be employed in the next hour. It is that uncertain. This legislation does not put in place mechanisms to protect workers employed for more than 12 months, who should have access to unfair termination laws. The government says that you cannot make your mind up in six months and that you really need the full 12 months. We say that six months is enough, but the government insists that you need the full 12 months. You do not. The very nature of being a casual means that you are only there casually; you are filling a gap. Government speakers have made a big deal of this, saying that it is for fruit picking, casual jobs, a little bit of work on the weekends to get you by while you are going through uni and so forth. But we are not talking about those jobs. We are talking about the casual jobs that are really permanent jobs. We are talking about those unscrupulous employers who abuse the system. I challenge the minister or any government member to say that there is not one employer out there who abuses the system; that there are none and that it is a pure system. The reality is that there are employers who abuse the system. They use the laws available to them to abuse workers employed on a casual basis. That is wrong, and something ought to be done about it.What is even more unfair is that this government tries to stigmatise and categorise casuals as some sort of seasonal, young work force that is just filling in time and maybe trying to get a few extra dollars to go out on the weekend. That is what we hear from the government benches. They do not understand that some people's families rely on casual work. Because of their privileged backgrounds, they do not understand that for whatever reason some people only have access to casual work. Those people may not be young; they may have children themselves. The government's denigration of casuals, saying that they are just seasonal, they are just going through uni and they are just doing this or just doing that, does not acknowledge the real significance of casual workers in this country and the contribution they make to the permanent work force—because many of them are actually permanent. Twenty-five per cent of the work force is now casualised. That is a lot of people in this country working on a so-called casual basis. The reality for most of those people is that they are casual in name but permanent in nature. If they are no longer in their job the next day, somebody else will be. The job itself is not casual; the job itself is permanent. I wanted specifically to make those points because I think they are central to what this legislation goes to and what Labor is on about in terms of opposing this very bad legislation. The government is trying to take rights away from a vulnerable group in the community that already has few rights and make it easier to sack them. That is the only intent of this bill: to make it easier for unscrupulous employers to abuse the system and sack people. Labor have opposed this, but we are not the only voices. There are a number of voices out there: employee advocates; unions; and, in particular, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. In 2000 the Metals Casuals case recognised some important factors and the plight of casual workers. In fact, the Industrial Relations Commission went so far as to say that the current casuals loading of 20 per cent was not sufficient, that it was not a proper representation of what casuals do and that it was not how they should be remunerated. So it advocated that that loading be raised to 25 per cent, which is a fairer representation of what a casual employee should be paid and also, importantly, what an employer should pay a casual employee in lieu of having a permanent employee. It matches the two up. There should be no real monetary advantage to an employer in employing a casual instead of a permanent worker. Very importantly, the commission also recognised that six months was an important factor in determining when a casual should become permanent. Six months is a long enough period of time and six months is a fair period of time. If you have a worker who has been there for six months on a casual basis, they are no longer casual; they are deemed to be permanent. Just because you call them casual does not make it so. That is just like the title of this bill: calling it fair termination does not make it so. It is just like the other bills this government has put forward, such as the More Jobs, Better Pay bill: the title does not make it so.I am trying to explain the flaw in government thinking, the flaw in the ideology. Most people would consider that this bill is flawed in those terms, but the reality is that it is not flawed in terms of the ideology of the government, because it reflects what the government are trying to do. They are trying to drive down the conditions and the little bit that casuals do get and make it harder for them. The government are trying to make it easier for employers to sack employees. There have been a number of other cases in relation to this. One comment in particular that might be of interest is from the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group, Bob Herbert. In relation to the decision of the commission he said:There has been no adjustment to casuals for 26 years. Certainly there will be some murmur among employers over the increased loading rates but in reality the Australian Industrial Relations Commission ruling simply brings casuals to roughly the same pay and conditions as their full-time colleagues.So, if the Chief Executive of the Australian Industry Group can see the correctness of this decision, can understand why it was made and can sympathise with the plight of casuals, why can't the government? Why can't the government accept that the Australian Industry Group believes that this is a good thing? As I have said many times in this place, unfortunately this government are not about protecting workers. Workers understand that; they know that. The government are about protecting big business, international business and their big company mates. The government are told their policy by their own focus groups and particular interest groups. I know there has been a lot of lobbying. I know that the minister has been lobbied heavily out there while his generals and soldiers, as he refers to them, make sure that they whip up the fury over casuals, demonise casuals and try to make it easier for employers to sack them so that casuals lose the rights that they currently have. The other case that was of interest was the Hamzy v. Tricon International Restaurants trading as KFC. The Federal Court found unanimously that regulation 30B(3) did not conform to the act. That means that the regulation was unlawful. That is the regulation that former Minister Reith put through to take away from casuals entitlements that were given to them through an act of parliament. When the government say that this was just a technicality, what they are really saying is that the minister did something unlawful. It might be a technicality in terms, but he did something unlawful. He knew what he was doing but he did it anyway because the government are hell-bent on driving forward with their agenda.What has come out of that case is the importance of a number of opportunities for the government to continue to drive forward in this area. The government has put forward a number of cases it has tried to use as evidence to support its bill. Unfortunately, it cannot seem to find any evidence out there. As I said before, the 50,000 jobs are just a mythological figure. There are a number of surveys that have been done on the intentions of small business, asking if small business supports the government's idea that we have to make it easier to sack casual workers. The government certainly could not find the answer in the Yellow Pages survey of small and medium businesses, nor in the Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey 1995. Those two surveys indicated that employers listed a range of priorities in terms of what was most critical to their business. In the Yellow Pages survey, only 5.6 per cent of respondents indicated that employment conditions or unfair dismissal, industrial relations, and health and safety were a barrier to hiring new staff. The Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey found that only 1.4 per cent of respondents mentioned unfair dismissal laws as a discrete impediment to hiring staff. So there you have two credible surveys that show 1.4 per cent and 5.6 per cent of small to medium businesses citing unfair dismissal as an impediment to hiring new staff. That is important because the government obviously could not use those figures. They are not the sorts of answers you would use if you were trying to mount a case for the opposite.What the government did was commission their own survey through the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. A number of government members have talked about it in this place. The person who ran this survey had an interesting methodology, a system commonly referred to as push polling. If you do not quite get the response you want, you mention the response you might like and ask what they think about that. You try to get around not getting the response you want by going down a different path, saying, `But, what if ...' You keep pushing until basically you get the answer you are after and then you tick it off as a question that has been answered. It is an interesting system. It is denounced by anybody who knows anything about surveys and polling because it does not give a true reflection of what people think.Even with all of that, even with the push polling tactics and the use of a man by the name of Mr Harding from the Melbourne Institute—who also, by the way, happened to be the government witness in their court cases on this type of action, which they lost; they have used him again in this case—what they found was that only one-third of the respondents, after being push polled, responded in the way the government wanted. That means that two-thirds of all small and medium business respondents, even after being push polled, still did not see that this as a major impediment. So here you have a man who has got what I think is a discredited survey, with two-thirds of the respondents still saying, `We do not see that as a major problem. There are other more important and more pressing priorities.' Also of interest in the survey was that this person came up with a mystical figure of a cost of $1.3 billion to small and medium businesses of going through the unfair dismissal process. This figure has been used daily in here. It was used today by every government speaker and it is used by the minister, but you have to go back and find out how we get to the $1.3 billion. He asked the respondents to the survey to tell him how much they thought it cost them. These are the answers he got: those that employed one to five people said the average cost was $45; those that employed six to 10 people said the average cost was $755; those that employed 11 to 20 people said the average cost was nil; those that employed 21 to 50 people said the average cost was $348; those that employed 51 to 100 people said the average cost was $17; and those that employed more than 100 people said the average cost was only $8 per employee. The discrepancy between the figures was so large that the cost ranged from zero to $30,000. If you look closely at the figures, you have to ask how they were reached. Those employing one to five people said the average cost was $45. How would you get a figure of $45, particularly when those employing six to 10 people said the average cost was $755? Somewhere, this does not add up.There is no consistency; there are huge discrepancies. Basically, it is worthless information. If you had to scientifically deduct anything from this information, you would get garbage—which is what was put in in the first place. It is a flawed survey, and yet the government pushes it every single day. In this House, government members repeat the lie that the cost is $1.3 billion. That has no substance whatsoever. Instead of giving support to small and medium businesses and trying to help them or casual workers, the government does absolutely nothing. They are not concerned whether there is something that is more of a priority for small business; they just want to get on with their ideological agenda. While the government and the opposition may disagree on this bill, we certainly agree about nothing in terms of how they got to the figures contained in it. I oppose this bill, and the government should consider the plight of casual workers. (Time expired)12:46:0010111McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I must express my disappointment with the previous speaker, the member for Oxley, and the member for Brisbane, who have not addressed the main arguments involved in the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002. The member for Oxley at least mentioned the Hamzy case, but the member for Brisbane did not even mention it at all in his long tirade about unfair dismissals and the creation of jobs. Neither speaker addressed the fundamental issue the bill discusses. Members opposite continue the tirade about the unfair dismissal laws. We on this side of the parliament know that unfair dismissal laws reduce the prospect of jobs. They reduce the prospect of employers putting people on because they know that, on average, it might cost them between $5,000 and $7,000 to run an unfair dismissal case.In this piece of legislation, we are discussing the unfair dismissal processes for casual employees. That is the basis of it, and those opposite did not address that in any shape or form. This legislation will create and protect jobs for casual employees in the Australian work force and it will restore the previous level of protection for short-term employees—as was understood by employers and employees. It was the interpretation of the Hamzy case that made the introduction of this legislation so important. Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you would be aware of the shearers, the fruit pickers, the potato diggers and all of those types of people in Tasmania who depend on casual work over the 12-month period for their source of employment. This bill amends the Workplace Relations Act to overcome difficulties identified by the Hamzy case with respect to the general understanding that people worked upon in employing casual people. The Hamzy case, and let us get it clearly on the record, relates to denying casuals access to unfair termination laws:... in Hamzy v Tricon International Restaurants t/as Kentucky Fried Chicken (Federal Court of Australia, Wilcox, Marshall and Katz JJ) a challenge was made to the validity of regulations 30B(1)(d) and 30B(3) of the Workplace Relations Regulations. The then regulations excluded casual employees from bringing unfair dismissal claims unless they had 12 months of regular and systematic employment, and the expectation of continuing employment. There we have it. On a technicality of an interpretation of the Hamzy case, casual employees could run an unfair dismissal case. As members on this side of the parliament know, unfair dismissal cases have been a great problem for employers. They have been reluctant on many occasions to put people on because they could be faced with an unfair dismissal case. For casual employees of under 12 months employment, there has been an understanding—even under the Brereton legislation—that they would not be able to utilise the unfair dismissal process. This has changed the whole format and understanding, and the minister and the government are putting forward this comparatively small piece of legislation to bring about a better understanding by both parties and to ensure that those casual employees do not utilise a technicality of an interpretation by the court. The NFF draw to the attention of the parliament the fruit industry and other industries where the seasonal nature of agriculture requires casual employees. Particularly in the Goulburn Valley with harvesting for horticultural produce, a great number of casuals are employed for under 12 months. They note that:The workers that are engaged for the season are itinerant, casual employees paid ... as piece workers ie they are paid a fixed sum per bin or bucket picked.That is always fully understood in that area and in the shearing industry and other agricultural pursuits that are largely based on the employment of casual employees for a short period of time; season by season and job by job. The NFF note, interestingly enough, that the horticulture sector has increased its work force by 20 per cent over the last four years. So we see a situation in agriculture, which I have some affinity with—particularly the shearing industry—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPVH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—I notice the member for Batman's interjection. He has never been in the shearing industry and he has never really done any hard work! I would invite him to come and join me in the shearing shed. He would understand the workers of Australia and how hard they work out there in the shearing industry. Those operations are on the basis of casual contracts for up to two or three weeks, and there would be a presumption that at the finish of a particular contract they would move to another shed.This case opens up the possibility that an unfair dismissal claim could be entered into and, of course, that you could go through the court process. If you do not go through the exact, precise unfair dismissal warning, et cetera, as I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, you could be up for between $5,000 and $7,000. Even the member for Batman can understand that figure, because he has been involved in a few of these unfair dismissal cases—on the other side of the fence, I understand. He knows in his heart of hearts that the unfair dismissal process is bad for business and bad for workers, and that if we could remove that from the statute books there would be greater prospects for jobs. Even the member for Batman, for all of his experience, is gradually reaching the understanding that small business in his electorate would be much better served by the removal of the unfair dismissal laws. We have put this legislation before those opposite five or six or seven times. With all that knowledge and understanding, those opposite have voted against the unfair dismissal legislation. They might even vote against this very sensible provision. They agreed to it in 1994, under the Brereton legislation, and people understood that was the way it worked.I would like to refer to some interesting comment in the report by the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Legislation Committee, which looked at this whole aspect. I think some of the evidence given to the committee summarised the position very well. In talking about the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002, the bill now being debated in the House, one piece of evidence from the Ai Group stated: Employers have lost some of the flexibility which they had available with regard to the use of different forms of employment. Further, employees who work on an irregular basis (often voluntarily due to their lifestyle choices or family responsibilities) may find that they have fewer employment opportunities because of an increased use of contractors at the expense of casual labour as a result of the Hamzy decision.There we have a sensible employer group putting up a sensible argument that this technical decision would reduce the ability of people to prospectively employ casual employees, and so job prospects would be reduced. In the Senate report, there is another interesting quote from Recruitment and Consulting Services Australia. They state:We believe also that employees have changed their mind-set. It is no small accident that 40 per cent of all temporary or casual staff are under 25 years of age. This is the type of employment that young people are seeking today. It gives them the opportunity to experiment with the market, to evaluate different careers in a quick manner. It gives them the flexibility to move in and out of different types of activities to suit the various lifestyles people are adopting these days. We believe that the temporary market these days, the casual market, is not a market of the disadvantaged but rather a market of those that choose a lifestyle and have, within the parameters of the legislation as proposed, the ability to move in and out freely with the support of employers and to exercise their right to take that flexibility.There we have quite an interesting quote from Recruitment and Consulting Services Australia demonstrating the importance of younger casual employees who wish to take a job and also the importance of those employers across small business who wish to use casual employees and not have the fear that they will be subjected to an unfair dismissal claim. The Hamzy case highlighted that whole process—which the member for Batman would agree with if he were allowed to speak freely—of employers being able to put on these young people, particularly at Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonald's, where they could seek employment at a young age. Most people in this House would agree with the benefit of gaining experience and employment in those types of situations on a casual basis.So we have a situation where the members opposite will yet again vote against this legislation on all kinds of pretexts about unfair dismissal and workers' rights, and yet they will not look at the fundamental evidence. Even the member for Batman does not understand it. I look forward to his comment, although I do not know that he is speaking on this bill. I know that he would provide a sensible understanding of this whole issue if he was only allowed to put a point of view and was not restricted by his party's policy. I commend the legislation to the House. I hope that those members opposite will support the bill because they know in their heart of hearts that it is a sensible provision, agreed to by a former Labor government and agreed to by employers, employees, farmers and everyone throughout Australia.Debate (on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson) adjourned.Bills10113R162410113Consideration resumed from 14 November.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 25, page 14 (line 13), after “Governments”, insert “and both Houses of the Parliament”.(2) Clause 25, page 14 (after line 23), at the end of subclause (4), add: ; (d) the applicability of establishing a National Stem Cell Bank.10000Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—I understand that it is the wish of the House to consider the amendments together.12:57:0010113Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.All members who have participated in the debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 unanimously agreed that a ban on human cloning and other unacceptable practices is crucial. I wholeheartedly support that view. The bill will enable strict prohibitions on human cloning and other unacceptable practices related to human reproduction across the entire nation, with serious penalties for non-compliance. In fact, the Weekend Australian of 7 December reported: Australia is one of the first nations to ban all human cloning experiments. ... ... ... ... giving Australia one of the tightest anti-cloning regimes in the world.It is essential that these prohibitions be enforced as soon as possible. Two amendments to the bill were passed in the Senate. The amendments relate to the independent review of the act two years after the act receives royal assent. The amendments provide that the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank be considered as part of the review and that the review report be provided to both houses of parliament as well as to the Council of Australian Governments.I believe that issues surrounding the establishment of a national stem cell bank warrant comprehensive and independent investigation. The amendments passed in the Senate should ensure that they receive proper consideration. I also consider that it is appropriate to provide both houses of parliament with the report on the review of the act. I will be supporting these amendments which, while placing additional requirements of the review of the legislation, remain consistent with the Council of Australian Governments agreement.Just to explain, the amendment moved by Senator Murphy to the review provisions outlined in clause 25 of the bill includes a requirement for the persons undertaking the review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act to give a written report of the review to COAG and both houses of parliament. This amendment will ensure that, while the report of the review is provided to COAG as intended, it will also be tabled in parliament. This will allow parliament to consider the recommendations of the report independently of its consideration by COAG. This will also inform parliament's consideration of any proposed amendments to the legislation as the result of agreements made at COAG in response to the report. The amendment does not alter the substance of the legislation in implementing the nationally consistent scheme agreed by COAG. I think all members would agree that our role in this place as elected representatives is to ensure transparency in process and to increase accountability to the public. This amendment achieves this purpose, and I accept it on this basis. I commend the Senate amendments to the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 to the House.13:00:0010114Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I echo the remarks of the Attorney-General. I support the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. I support the amendments. A ban on human cloning is sensible, is necessary and, on the basis of the debate both here and in the Senate, has the universal and unanimous support of the parliament. The Attorney has clearly outlined the modest impact of the amendments, which are consistent with the general thrust of the legislation. On that basis, I support the amendments and commend them to the House.13:01:0010114Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I overlooked a second amendment. The amendment moved by Senator Stott Despoja and Senator McLucas to the review provisions outlined in clause 25 of the bill includes, in the provisions for the review of the act, a term of reference for consideration of the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank. Members may agree that the issues around a stem cell bank are sufficiently complicated to warrant detailed, comprehensive and independent investigation. Before any decision to establish such a bank is made, this addition to the terms of reference will be timely, as it will be informed by the review of intellectual property issues relating to human genes and genetic technologies by the Australian Law Reform Commission which Senator Patterson and I recently announced. I think this amendment to the legislation is a positive one that does not detract in any way from the COAG agreement, and I therefore support it also.13:02:0010114Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Again, to echo the remarks of the Attorney-General, so far as the opposition is concerned, because it refers to the establishment of a national stem cell bank, the amendment would on our side of course be subject to a conscience vote. It is simply to add the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank to clause 25 of the review provisions. It does not in any way detract from the review or add in any way to the pros and cons of the establishment or otherwise of a national stem cell bank. On that basis, the opposition view would be to support the amendment, but on the basis of a reference to stem cells, subject to a conscience vote on our side. Question agreed to.Bills10115R162510115Consideration resumed from 14 November.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 16), after “Involving”, insert “Human”.(2) Clause 8, page 7 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) if other guidelines are issued by the NHMRC under the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 and prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph—consent obtained in accordance with those other guidelines, rather than the guidelines mentioned in paragraph (a).(3) Clause 10, page 9 (line 22), after “created”, insert “where the suitability of the embryo is determined only on the basis of its biological fitness for implantation”.(4) Clause 10, page 10 (after line 4), before the definition of observation, insert:diagnostic investigation, in relation to an excess ART embryo, means any procedure undertaken on embryos for the sole purpose of diagnostic investigations for the direct benefit of the woman for whom it was created.(5) Clause 11, page 10 (lines 12 to 14), omit paragraph (1)(b), substitute: (b) the use is not for a purpose relating to the assisted reproductive technology treatment of a woman carried out by an accredited ART centre, and the person knows or is reckless as to that fact.(6) Clause 11, page 10 (lines 16 to 25), omit subclause (2).(7) Clause 16, page 13 (line 28), at the end of subclause (3), add: ; (c) be satisfied upon receipt of a written declaration by the member proposed to be appointed that the member proposed does not have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a body that undertakes uses of excess ART embryos, being an interest of a kind that could conflict with the proper performance of the member's functions.(8) Clause 19, page 14 (after line 28), at the end of the clause, add: (3) The NHMRC Licensing Committee must cause a report to be tabled in either House of Parliament on or before: (a) 30 June of each year; and (b) 31 December of each year; and (c) any other time required by either House of Parliament;that must include information about: (d) the operation of this Act; and (e) the licences issued under this Act.(9) Clause 21, page 16 (line 5), omit “the number of excess ART embryos”, substitute “restricting the number of excess ART embryos to that”.(10) Clause 21, page 16 (lines 8 and 9), omit “advance in knowledge, or improvement in technologies for treatment, as a result”, substitute “advance in knowledge or improvement in technologies for treatment as a result”.(11) Clause 21, page 16 (line 13), after “NHMRC”, insert “under the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 and prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph”.(12) Clause 26, page 18 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add: (2) If a licence holder is convicted of an offence under this Act or the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002, the NHMRC Licensing Committee must, by notice in writing given to the licence holder, revoke each licence held by the licence holder. (13) Clause 47, page 33 (line 14), after “Governments”, insert “and both Houses of the Parliament”.(14) Clause 47, page 33 (line 24), at the end of subclause (4), add: ; (d) the applicability of establishing a National Stem Cell Bank.13:03:0010116Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.There has been considerable debate in both houses of parliament on the complex ethical, moral and scientific questions raised by this legislation. Members of this chamber have so far spent approximately 38 hours debating both the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill and the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002. Twenty-four hours were spent on the original bill by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, and the members of the Senate chamber spent 46 hours debating the two bills. The length and detail of the debate on the bills and the controversial and emotive issues raised reflect the importance of this debate.The debate has focused on the regulation of research using excess assisted reproductive technology, ART, embryos that would otherwise have been destroyed. A majority of members have indicated their support for this research given the strict regulatory environment and safeguards which the Research Involving Embryos Bill establishes. For the first time in Australia, this bill establishes a regulatory environment to govern the use of excess ART embryos. It sets appropriate boundaries in a sensitive and delicate area, an area where currently, in five states and territories, there is no legislation or regulation governing these activities. A number of members have indicated that they believe the Research Involving Embryos Bill is very cautious and very strict. I agree that this is a sensible, cautious and balanced piece of legislation. Fourteen amendments to the bill were passed in the Senate. These amendments, while remaining consistent with the COAG agreement, seek to both strengthen the legislation and provide for additional parliamentary scrutiny. As such, I will be supporting the amendments. The two amendments to the review clause of the cloning bill were replicated in the review clause to the Research Involving Embryos Bill. The amendments enable the independent review of both acts to be undertaken concurrently and by the same persons. The more significant of the other 12 amendments to the Research Involving Embryos Bill can be summarised as follows. Any guidelines issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council which are relevant to this legislation will be prescribed in regulations which will come before the parliament for scrutiny. Reference to the code of practice of the industry based body that currently oversees routine ART clinical practice in Australia, the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee of the Fertility Society of Australia, is removed. A person nominated to be a member of the National Health and Medical Research Council Licensing Committee must not have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a body that uses excess ART embryos. The licensing committee must report to parliament every six months and at any time requested by parliament. There will be an automatic revocation of a licence to carry out research on excess ART embryos if a licence holder is convicted of an offence under either act.There are also minor technical amendments to strengthen the wording of the legislation. They include inserting the word `human' into the short title of the bill. They also involve strengthening the wording of the exemption for diagnostic testing and restricting the number of embryos used under a licence. These amendments seek to achieve greater clarification of the purpose of the legislation and provide for stronger wording of restrictions under the legislation. As such, I will be supporting the Senate amendments.Amendments were circulated in the Senate to ban the export of embryos and embryonic stem cells. Rather than amending this legislation, the Prime Minister agreed that it was more appropriate to amend customs regulations to take account of these issues. The original bill was developed through a cooperative partnership between the states and territories and the Commonwealth. A number of members have recognised the significance of an agreement between premiers, chief ministers and the Commonwealth and the importance of a nationally consistent approach. It was agreed in this chamber on 29 August to split the original bill into two bills. I believe that the two bills as amended by the Senate keep faith with the COAG agreement and give the same effect to that agreement as the original bill introduced by the Prime Minister on 27 June.I propose briefly to refer to the amendments. Senator Harradine moved an amendment to the short title of the bill during Senate debate. This amendment inserted the word `human' so that the short title of the act would become the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. The amendment, while minor, clarifies the purpose of this important piece of legislation, which regulates the use of excess ART embryos—that is, human embryos created for the purposes of assisted reproductive technology—which are no longer required by the couple for whom they were created. Inserting the word `human' in the title makes it clear that we are talking about human embryos. I support the amendment.Senator Barnett successfully moved an amendment in the Senate to paragraph (b) of the definition of `proper consent' in clause 8 which would require other guidelines, as issued by the NHMRC under the NHMRC Act, including the revised ART guidelines, to be prescribed in the regulations for the purposes of this legislation. (Extension of time granted) Similarly, an amendment was made to clause 21(4)(d) so that the bill requires relevant guidelines considered by the NHMRC Licensing Committee to be prescribed in the regulations. These amendments were supported in the Senate in response to consideration of the legislation by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The legislation relies on guidelines from the NHMRC in defining `proper consent' in clause 8 and in detailing matters that the NHMRC Licensing Committee must have regard to in clause 21. Because NHMRC guidelines are updated regularly, it was considered appropriate that the revised guidelines be listed in regulations and therefore be made disallowable for the purposes of this legislation. These amendments will allow parliament the opportunity to consider the revised guidelines during its scrutiny of the regulations. Such amendments in no way detract from the agreement made at COAG. I support the amendments and recommend others do the same.An amendment to clause 10 strengthens the wording of the exemption in that clause relating to diagnostic investigations. This matter was raised during the second reading debate in the House and again during deliberations of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee. While the legislation already contained a range of safeguards for ensuring that general research activities cannot avoid the licensing requirements by claiming to be exempt, the amendment strengthens the wording to clarify the intent that diagnostic investigations can only be undertaken on excess ART embryos that are unsuitable for implantation where this may benefit the treatment of the woman for whom the embryo was created.Senator Collins also moved an amendment to the bill to insert a definition of `diagnostic investigation'. The bill now recognises that a diagnostic investigation in relation to an excess ART embryo means any procedure undertaken on embryos for the sole purpose of diagnostic investigations for the direct benefit of the woman for whom it was created. These amendments strengthen the legislation and do not detract from the COAG agreement. I commend them to the House.Two amendments were made in the Senate to clause 11 of the bill. These amendments change clause 11 such that the offence for using an embryo that is not an excess ART embryo has been simplified. These amendments were not opposed by Senator Patterson, since the matter had been raised by the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The committee was concerned that the legislation delegated regulatory responsibility to a non-government body. The intent of clause 11 is to close off any potential loopholes, because in five jurisdictions without legislation to regulate assisted reproductive technology there were no penalties for using a non-excess ART embryo. Clause 11 makes it an offence to use a non-excess ART embryo unless it is being used in association with the IVF treatment of a particular woman. The original offence used the term `ART program' and relied on the code of practice issued by the Reproductive Technology Accreditation Committee, RTAC, of the Fertility Society of Australia—an industry based body that currently oversees routine ART clinical practice in Australia—in defining this term. This reference to a non-government organisation was raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. While the amendments avoid referencing the RTAC code of practice, there is still a requirement for the use of any embryo that is not an excess ART embryo to be undertaken by an accredited ART centre. The proposed amendments clarify the intent of the legislation, do not weaken it and are fully consistent with the COAG communique. I support the amendments. An amendment to clause 16 provides that, before appointing a member to the NHMRC Licensing Committee, the minister must be satisfied that the proposed member does not have a direct or indirect financial interest that may conflict with the proper performance of that member's duties. It is a standard requirement that nominees to the National Health and Medical Research Council and all of its principal committees, of which the licensing committee will be one, and working committees complete and sign a declaration of interests. However, this minor technical amendment will complement the NHMRC's existing committee procedures and make it clear that such requirements apply to the NHMRC Licensing Committee in the same way that they apply to all principal committees of the NHMRC. I will not be opposing this amendment.An amendment to clause 19 agreed in the Senate changes that clause such that the bill now requires the NHMRC Licensing Committee to report to parliament twice a year and at any time that either house of parliament requests a report. The reports must include information regarding the operation of the act in addition to any licences issued by the licensing committee. (Extension of time granted) While the NHMRC Licensing Committee is already required to report annually through the NHMRC's annual report, hold a publicly available database and report to parliament at any time it considers necessary, this minor technical amendment increases the frequency of reporting to parliament. This requirement will make the reporting under this bill among the strongest and most transparent in the world. While the original reporting requirements were deemed to be adequate, I support the amendment as it provides the parliament with further opportunities to review the operation of the act and therefore increases public scrutiny of the regulatory system.A minor technical amendment to clause 21 agreed by the Senate makes it clearer that the number of embryos used should be limited to only that necessary to achieve the goals of the project. The amendment does clarify the intent of the clause and is fully in keeping with the COAG agreement. I support that amendment.A further amendment to clause 21 makes a grammatical change to clause 21(4)(b) by deleting two commas that were originally contained in the text of the bill. Deleting the punctuation from this provision makes no substantive change to the interpretation of the legislation. Therefore, in the interest of expediting passage of the legislation, I will support the amendment.A minor technical amendment in clause 26 requires the NHMRC Licensing Committee to revoke any licence if the licence holder has been convicted of an offence under either the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 or the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. It is expected that the licensing committee will employ a range of sanctions to ensure compliance with the legislation—that is, it is expected that revocation of a licence would occur well before a person is prosecuted under the legislation. However, this amendment puts in place such arrangements which would normally be dealt with at an administrative level. Given the minor nature of the amendment, which does not detract from the legislation, I am prepared to accept it to expedite the passage of the legislation. Two amendments to clause 47 were accepted by the Senate to ensure that the review provisions of the two acts remained consistent. Members would recall that the provisions for the review, as outlined in clause 25 of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill, were amended by the Senate to include a requirement for the persons undertaking the review to give a written report of the review to COAG and both houses of parliament in the review provisions outlined in clause 25 of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002 and to include a term of reference for consideration of the applicability of establishing a national stem cell bank. Given that this change to the Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill has been made by the Senate in order to maintain consistency between reviews of both acts, I support these amendments. I commend the amendments to the House.13:17:0010119Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition supports the Research Involving Embryos Bill 2002 and we support acceptance of the amendments dealing with stem cell research on spare or excess embryos. They are of course subject to a conscience vote. The Attorney and I sat through, I think, the entire debate in this House. We may not be unique in that, but we were certainly two of a small and select number. No doubt the Attorney spent a considerable amount of time either listening to or being briefed on the debate in the Senate and I did likewise. There was nothing in the course of any of that debate which moved me from a view I had come to originally that, if you had come to the view that it was morally, legally and ethically acceptable to have IVF, then you had no option, in my mind, other than to support the passage of the legislation. The passage of the legislation today will bring hope to those people who look to research on spare or excess embryos produced for the purpose of IVF as the only hope for the best research for providing a cure for afflictions which adversely affect them.The Attorney has gone through the amendments which were moved in the Senate variously by Senators Collins, Hogg, Bishop, Murphy, McLucas, Stott Despoja, Barnett and Harradine and has more than adequately covered the reasons to accept those amendments or the reasons that those amendments do not detract from the thrust of the legislation and which, as a consequence, to assist passage both in the Senate and ultimately through the parliament, are not opposed. Many of the amendments are minor and conflict neither with the fundamental substance of the legislation or the COAG agreement.It is probably worth referring to three undertakings that were given by the government in the course of the Senate debate which facilitated the passage of the legislation. One, of course, was an undertaking by the Prime Minister that the Attorney would ask the Australian Law Reform Commission to do a review of intellectual property and patenting arrangements for gene and genetic information, and I think that is a sensible approach. There was considerable concern expressed in the Senate on that issue, and it is a very sensible way for the government to look at that public policy issue down the track. Secondly, the Minister for Health and Ageing gave an undertaking that the government would promulgate Customs regulations in respect of the prohibition of exporting human embryos. That facilitated debate and was a sensible approach. The minister for health, Senator Patterson, also gave an undertaking in respect of a review of the existing National Health and Medical Research Council committee procedures and to bring forward regulations in respect of those should that be the view of the NHMRC. All those undertakings are sensible and facilitated the passage of the bill, particularly in the case of the Law Reform Commission's proposed work on intellectual property and patenting arrangements. We look forward to that report and consideration of it.I will very quickly take the opportunity to make a comment about procedures. I noticed that, at the end of the debate in the Senate, the Senate had what the Senate described as a `rolling guillotine' to ensure the passage of a bill by a particular time. In this place we—in my view, unwisely—referred the bill to the Main Committee for the second reading debate and then came back here for the committee stage without ever in the first instance putting our minds to procedures or timetables. It is my view, having experienced two pieces of legislation where a conscience vote applied—the euthanasia legislation put forward by the member for Menzies and now this legislation—that, rather than sending this type of legislation to the Main Committee, or `sideshow alley' as it is sometimes referred to, we might want to put our minds to timetabling the legislation in advance of its consideration. That might see the debate held here but also conducted in a more orderly and timely fashion, which would see the government continue to be able to meet its government business program while, at the same time, giving all members of the House the opportunity of speaking on matters where views and beliefs are firmly and conscientiously held. The opposition supports acceptance of the amendments moved in the Senate. As I have indicated, they are of course subject to a conscience vote. From a personal point of view, I support the amendments and the passage of the bill. I welcome it as it gives hope to people suffering from terrible afflictions and diseases.Question agreed to.Bills10120R147810120Debate resumed.13:23:0010120Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—Today I want to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 and the worrying implications it has for workers and their families in my electorate of Lyons and also in other areas around Australia. Ensuring that employers meet their proper responsibilities in the workplace is an integral part of our overall social and economic agenda. Many commentators point out that, although we are experiencing good rates of growth in the economy—but, of course, that has been downgraded by the Treasurer—we are also seeing greatly increased rates of social and community disharmony as well as underemployment and unemployment all around the country. We are seeing ever-increasing rates of family breakdown, youth homelessness—often leading to suicide—and a general lack of social and community cohesion. It is the responsibility of our federal government to address these issues on behalf of all Australians, and workplace relations is one of the areas that can and must be addressed to help alleviate these problems. You cannot have a family policy and an industrial relations policy that do not relate to each other. They have to be a portion of the whole picture. Unfortunately, as I carefully scrutinise this bill and others, I find that the government is very enthusiastic about fiscal savings for employers but has thought very little about improving the lot of average Australian workers, their families and communities. Casual workers are the most precarious workers of all. They have few rights now, and they will have nothing if this bill is implemented. Labor is committed to the idea that all workers deserve rights and justice, and this legislation takes away the few rights that they have left.The government's argument that all people will benefit from the removal of this apparent barrier from small business is devious, unfair and very untrue. I am a supporter of small business but I suggest that this ill-conceived furphy that is being presented by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations serves no real purpose for small business. It only serves to put the employees—the workers, the very people it purports to help—in an even more precarious position than they are in now. The minister is playing politics with a very serious issue and with people's lives.My electorate of Lyons contains a wide range of industries and workplaces along with a wealth of skilled workers who are part of this work force. There are businesses of many sizes and kinds, all employing people who need the protection of our workplace relations legislation. If I needed a clear example of the ways in which ill-conceived workplace legislation and regulation can affect a community and community cohesion, I would look no further than the recent events and processes in the mining industry in my electorate. In response to the problems caused by extended shift regimes in a number of Tasmanian mining operations, the state government commissioned a report to review safety in the Tasmanian mining industry. The report, entitled The struggle for time,was prepared by Kathryn Heiler of the University of Sydney, and was published in August 2002. The primary focus of the report is the current regulations in respect of the industrial, personal and social outcomes of the current extended shift regimes. The report is far reaching and presents a detailed analysis of work and of social ramifications of fatigue, sleep loss and family and community dislocation that are occurring as a result of the extended 56-hour shifts.It is worth noting that, in the report's conclusions, the author found that many of the rosters—in particular the more extensive rosters—are having an adverse impact on employees' health, safety and family life. She believed that there is also a set of latent problems emerging which are associated with the increased risk of accidents and employee ill-health. Thus, Ms Heiler has made the recommendations that a new framework for regulation controlling the work practices and conditions should be considered as a matter of priority. There can be only condemnation for a system that is clearly causing great physical hardship, a threat to safety and a dramatic level of social and community degradation. That is what the report has uncovered in an isolated and remote part of Tasmania.I firmly believe that the report is an important indicator of what can happen in the workplace when workplace regulations are less than adequate. Its recommendations for a complete overhaul of the regulations are encouraging, and I recommend this report to anyone who is interested in the onground conditions of workers and their families—as I know many of us are and all of us should be. The struggle for time report was prepared with careful methodology and the author was at pains to reach conclusions independently of any economic pressures that may apply to corporations competing in a volatile industry. It concerns the very real plight of workers and their families and calls for change in regulation and legislation to help alleviate this plight.In Australia we look for the federal government to pass legislation that is fair and not biased to one side or the other. It is a sad fact that this government's and this Prime Minister's lack of understanding of conditions on the ground in industries across Australia will mean that these conditions will not change. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Abbott, on 13 November this year in this chamber said:Reforms since 1996 have resulted in fewer strikes, lower inflation, higher productivity and lower interest rates.It is clear that, in the Tasmanian mining industry, higher productivity and fewer strikes have been achieved by dramatic and detrimental increases in working hours, resulting in sheer exhaustion, reduced community time and an atmosphere of fear—people are frightened to report injuries or accidents because of the possibility of losing their employment. The minister continued:Award simplification has established a fairer and more streamlined safety net of minimum wages and conditions of employment.Streamlined? Perhaps. But such minimum wages and conditions are designed to assist the employers, not the broad spectrum of industries—and that includes the workers, their families and the community at large. Most of these groups appear to be expendable. The 56-hour roster is designed purely for mine owners to achieve optimum profits at the expense of the very people the awards seek to protect. The community is not presented with any proposals that hold out the promise of improved working conditions that perhaps could be negotiated within a sane and productive regulatory framework. All we have are proposals that make it more difficult for workers to complain without placing themselves and their families at the risk of being thrown into the abyss of joblessness.It is the fundamental right of all Australian workers not to be dismissed unfairly from employment without having access to remedy or recourse. Australians believe in a fair go all round. That means balancing the needs of both employees and employers and, in that balance, there must also be fairness and justice for those who are employed. Working people are vulnerable. The smaller the workplace, the more vulnerable they are and, if dismissed, the less likely they are to be able to access a fair hearing. In the amendments we have before us, there is no attempt to adhere to these principles. It is not the case, as this government and the minister like to suggest, that `unfair dismissal' means that the employer is always wrong and is forced to pay severance money when an employee complains they have been sacked unfairly. Nor should it be the case, as appears to be the government's wish, that `fair dismissal' means an employee is immediately expendable and should be grateful to have a job. This is the hidden message behind many of the statements that I have heard from the minister and government members. We believe that the government should be playing a constructive role in helping both employees and employers. I hear government members speak only for one side. My experience in life is that there are always two sides to a story.Legislation driven by political and ideological agendas is perpetually presented by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. It is continually based on unstated and hypothetical assumptions about a Utopia that will come from lower interest rates, fewer strikes, higher productivity and lower inflation. Utopia for a few—but hell for many. The government seems to forget that more is needed than just protection for the working rights of individuals. Workers are also members of families and communities. Taking away one wage packet unfairly can mean punishment for more than just the worker; the whole community suffers. As I contemplate these amendments, I realise that the sins are those not only of omission but also of commission. This legislation not only makes no attempt to analyse and improve working conditions for Australian workers but also deliberately attempts to slip the thin end of the wedge into the right of workers to seek redress if they feel they are being treated unfairly by their employers.In all honesty, are these proposed reforms enhancing industrial democracy in Australia or are they helping to shatter it? I reject both the content and the motivation of this legislation currently before us. It is entirely unfair and unjust. If we genuinely believe that we want to become not just an affluent society—a society where there is opportunity—but also a civilised one, we have to understand that we must strive not just in connection with the economy but in our ability to develop in sophisticated, flexible ways. Also, the health and welfare of workers contributes to affluence in such a dramatic way that they must also be recognised and remain a constant. This is unlikely to come to pass with a government that ignores all indications to the contrary, insisting on developing its industrial relations reforms according to what it perceives as the economic bottom line. I am glad that the Prime Minister still believes in Father Christmas, as I do; unfortunately, the season for joy and giving does not seem to extend to workers in their various environments around Australia, particularly those in isolated areas or poorly paid casual jobs. I will not be supporting the motion.13:36:0010122Cobb, John, MPMr JOHN COBB00AN1ParkesNP10—Small businesses and rural industries are the fabric of our communities. They are the heart and soul of regional and remote areas—in other words, country Australia. They keep our work force moving forward, they provide all the opportunities, and they provide the go forward and the development for rural communities. The nature of industry and agriculture in country areas dictates the need for a readily available casual work force. This Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 will restore to business broad protection from termination of employment claims brought on by short-term casual employees.According to a survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics last year, one in five employed persons consider themselves to be employed on a casual basis. Of the 1.6 million in that category, 41 per cent were under 25. Casual work suits young people who have chosen a particular career path. Retaining a young work force is crucial to the growth and development of all our country areas. Casual work pays well. It allows young people to support themselves while they pursue studies at university to increase their education. It provides a second income for a young family. It gives schoolchildren the opportunity to enter the work force. Also, it is obviously much cheaper for a business to employ younger people, to give young people a go. Restaurants, cafes, service stations and retail outlets rely on young casuals to ensure businesses can successfully continue to operate effectively in country areas. We must remove the threats that hinder and restrict their growth and development. In a survey of the effects of unfair dismissal laws conducted by Don Harding it was found that almost 70 per cent of firms surveyed felt the unfair dismissal laws had some influence on their business procedures, while almost 52 per cent of businesses reported that the laws had influenced their procedures for dealing with workers whose performance was unsatisfactory. The point is that threats posed by unfair termination laws are enough to discourage small businesses in country areas from employing casual people. Apart from rural industries, few businesses in country areas employ more than 20 people.The coalition has attempted to pass small business exemptions into law since it first came into office in 1996, but the resistance has been incredible. The ALP has voted against unfair dismissal reforms 22 times in seven years. It is abundantly clear the ALP does not take the interests of small businesses and country businesses seriously. While we have tried to bring forward job creation measures, the opposition has been preoccupied with measures that add to the uncertainty and fear in small businesses and rural industries right through our communities.I now want to turn the attention of the House to farming for a moment. As times and technology have changed so has our need for permanent workers. In many cases, machinery has replaced the need for permanent employees. One man can now do what three used to do. Many farmers rely on casual workers during peak seasons such as harvesting and cultivation. Because of that, many workers have had to branch out and provide contract farm services. Shearers may double as header drivers during harvest or may own their own contract equipment to use in the off-season in order to supplement their income. A casual farmhand may service a large community, providing livestock and cropping services to farmers in the district. Their livelihood depends on readily accessible casual work.Much of our community is geared toward casual employment. Under the Workplace Relations Act, the farmer who considers using the services of casual farmhands or contractors is frightened off by the threat of unfair dismissal. It is not only farmers; small businesses both in my electorate and right across the land are very frightened by the prospect of unfair dismissal laws. The agricultural sector as a whole has a very small permanent work force—it is geared to casual labour. The National Farmers Federation pointed out to our Democrat colleagues that the exclusion of casual employees from unfair dismissal laws is essential for the efficient operation of agriculture. The NFF said:The regulations are realistic and sensible. They permit the engagement and disengagement of casual employees without the need to comply with an overly bureaucratic regime for those who engage seasonal and other casual workers.If Labor truly believe in supporting regional and country Australia, they must learn that they have to move with the times. Labor have to recognise that small business in country Australia is mainly geared to a casual work force. If they want to see us truly develop as a community and see investment in small business, they must allow the government to pass a law, which it has been trying to do for six years, which would give some real confidence, heart and willingness to invest in new ideas and new developments. We must give small business the ability to employ people on a short-term basis without fear of retribution.13:43:0010124Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—It is quite extraordinary to speak in debates such as this one on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002, particularly when you follow a member like the member for Parkes, who no doubt has a keen interest in the employment prospects of his constituents—as we all do in this place. Time and time again members of the coalition backbench are prepared to come in here and without a shred of evidence say that, unless we change our unfair dismissal laws in some way, we are never going to create employment. There is no link ever shown or any evidence ever put forward by them, but they have an absolute belief and confidence that what they are told by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is true. I would have thought there would be a few people even on the government side who might not accept that so readily these days. It is quite extraordinary that every single time we have to debate the fear that small businesses have about being subject to unfair dismissal complaints. The member for Corangamite is a good example. I am glad he is here in the House. Someone like the member for Corangamite, who actually understands the industrial relations system, knows full well that, if you put half as much energy into explaining to small businesses how to conduct their business in a way which would give them the flexibility that was required and be inside the law to employ as many people—young people and casuals—as they wanted to, we would all be a lot better placed. Instead, members like the member for Corangamite, led by the previous minister and followed in the same style by the current minister, love to terrify employers about the risk of being subjected to an unfair dismissal complaint. Rather, they could explain that employers could put people on probation and tell them that they need to perform to an adequate standard and, if they do not, they will not continue to be employed. This is not a new idea but it is one that seems to absolutely defy logic as far as the government is concerned.Members opposite must start asking whether this is the right way to attack this problem. It is extraordinary that some members—particularly the previous speaker, the member for Parkes—say, `Casual appointment suits people. Casual employment is what people want; therefore, it is a really good idea.' Part-time employment and some type of regular casual employment may suit some people. If members opposite were honest, they would know that most people are not given a choice. If an employer says, `We would like to offer you a full-time, part-time or casual job,' the young person does not say, `What I really want is a casual job. I don't want to know how many hours I'm working until tomorrow. I don't want to know whether I'm going to have a job if I take two days off to do my exams. That would suit me perfectly.' It is a nonsense to say that employees want this sort of flexibility. We get caught up all the time in the rhetoric.If there were some people of goodwill on the other side who were interested in this debate, who would be prepared to sit down and say, `We could run a campaign informing small businesses of how they can employ people, of the sorts of things they need to explain to employees when they are put on,' we could avoid this problem. To suggest that young people or young mothers have an active choice in the current employment market is quite ridiculous.It was also extraordinary that some of the previous speakers said that casual work is a good thing for people to pick up a bit of extra money for their second income. This is not acknowledging that we have over two million people in the work force as casuals and that they are relying on their casual employment for their total family income. They are not relying on it for a bit of pin money, which has been suggested by some members; they are relying on it to pay for their children's education or to purchase a house. All of these things are becoming increasingly difficult and are affected by ideological debate rather than by looking at the real situation.I particularly wanted to speak on this bill because I represent the children and youth affairs portfolio. If this bill were successful, a large number of the people who would be affected are the young people that I am seeking to represent. Many of them are young parents, particularly young mothers, who are seeking to return to the work force after having had children and having been out of the work force for some time. A number of speakers, particularly the member for Barton, have addressed a lot of the industrial relations issues—the technical problems of decisions made in the Federal Court previously that this piece of legislation seeks to get around and the injustice that could be introduced if this bill was successfully passed. I want to take this a step further and look at the context and at the changing nature of employment that many others have spoken about. Those on the other side of this House have said, `We need to acknowledge the changing nature of employment; therefore we need to make the employment as insecure as possible.' They have not said, `We need to look at the changing market, the changing nature of employment and acknowledge that insecurity is a huge issue for our communities'. I am absolutely sure that it is a huge issue for the communities represented by both sides of the House. We should be looking at ways of providing some decent outcomes, flexibility and opportunities for the people seeking work and for the businesses employing them. We should not have this knee-jerk reaction on whether it is going to be X number of months before you can sack someone—all this sort of nonsense.There are challenges for young people at the moment and this bill poses some great risks for them. We have seen a lot of research recently about young people delaying life decisions that might have been made in previous generations—particularly whether to purchase a house and whether to settle down and have a family. The trends are such that they cannot be explained by some people making a choice and perhaps having more opportunities. They are much more likely to be indicative of the fact that young people are coming out of schools and universities and have large debts to pay. Despite their qualifications, they are often only able to find casual employment. They cannot get a home loan on the basis of casual employment; in fact, they cannot even hope to save a deposit and apply for a loan on the basis of it. This is a real problem that should be addressed by those opposite who care about the communities that they represent.I was watching a school program on the ABC or SBS the other night on inventions. A 10-year-old boy had come up with some brilliant invention that was going to be used to scare birds away from crops. He won $250. The interviewer asked him what he was going to do with the $250. He said, `I am going to save it because I need to buy a house and car.' I thought that was a pretty extraordinary thing for a 10-year-old to be saying, except that it is becoming a reality. If young people are ever going to be able to afford to buy a house or car and have any independence, they need to start saving very early, because they might spend many years in casual employment. It does not seem fair to me that, if you are going to have people in long-term casual employment, they should not have protection from unfair dismissal laws in the same way that other employees do.It is a nonsense for the government to beat up that, if you are a casual employee, you should not have any of these rights. The member for Parkes gave examples about seasonal work. The people who are doing seasonal work for three or four months would not be affected by the amendments that the opposition is putting up anyway. This is for people who are working regularly, have an expectation to have ongoing employment and have been doing that week in week out; otherwise, they would not fall within this definition, whether the employment was for six or 12 months. If a casual worker works one week and not the next or a casual worker works for one day and then for five weeks the next time, they will not come within these definitions. So the debate we are having is not focused on the very issues that affect people in the community.Even though I have only been in this House for four years, I feel like I have spoken a lot of times on a bill, or something similar, where the government wants to narrow the rights of working people, even if those people have been treated unfairly. It is hard for those of us on this side of the House to understand. Our suggestions only seek to protect people who have been treated unfairly. They do not say that an employer should be unable to dismiss someone if they have behaved inappropriately. This seems to be missed. Having listened to all the arguments from the other side year in and year out, no good reason has been given by the government as to why an employer should be able to sack a regular employee who has done nothing wrong. The protection of people who have been treated unfairly is a pretty basic thing we should strive for, but somehow it has escaped the government, particularly those on the back bench, who are prepared to just repeat what the minister says without giving it any scrutiny. A group of people in whom I have a particular interest are the young parents who might be seeking to return to work and are often in casual employment. Recently I have visited large numbers of child-care centres and play groups and met with families. They have told me how they have not had a family holiday for five or six years. I asked them whether that was because they had not been able to save the money for it—for a lot of people income is a big thing—and inquired about the range of problems that might have confronted them. These families have never even had the opportunity to have time off work to have a holiday together, even without going away anywhere. They have worked as casuals for four or five years, do not get paid sick leave or holiday leave, and are often not entitled to time off. If the employer wants to offer them work, he says, `You will lose your casual job if you do not work.' I do not think that is the sort of country we want to live in. I am sure that the member who is going to speak after me does not want families in his electorate to never have the opportunity to holiday together. I have also met with more and more mothers who are saying, `I cannot say yes to any employment offer because the employer will not tell me what days I will be working and I cannot not get into child care if I cannot tell child care what days I need.' We have heard more and more examples of people saying, `I found out which days I can get child care, and then I have gone to look for a job where I can work on those days.' This is a ridiculous situation for people to be in. The government are adding an extra layer of insecurity to these problems by saying, `If you manage to negotiate your way through all of these changes, we are going to make it easier for you to be sacked, as well.' How is that fair and decent? It is an extraordinary proposal. I am also concerned about students, who are often used as examples of why we want to make casual employment easy and why we want to support it as a system. Casual employment may work for many students but for many it causes great problems because they do not have any predictability as to when they can work. We have seen recent reports from the Vice-Chancellors' Committee of students who miss classes regularly and who are sometimes even at risk of missing exams or losing their jobs because they cannot negotiate with their employers appropriate working times—they have no rights. These people—even if they are working as casuals in those jobs year in, year out, probably throughout a four- or five-year degree—are still not regarded by this government as being worthy of having any rights. That is outrageous. I do not believe that all of the speakers on the government side could want to introduce this sort of system. I am also worried about a specific proposal in this bill that not many on the other side of the House have talked about, and that is the introduction of filing fees for unfair dismissal claims. The only reason the government repeatedly tries to introduce these fees is that it is not interested in people who do not have very much money being able to fight their claims and get a fair hearing in the Industrial Relations Commission. There is no reason for wanting to introduce these filing fees other than to ensure that those who have enough money can fight and those who do not have enough money have to go quietly. It is the reverse of the situation we should have. We have an unfair dismissal system which is supposed to be designed to be relatively cheap, for both those who might have claims made against them as well as for those who are making the claims. It is unfair that the government is seeking to introduce a charge which might prohibit people from pursuing their rights. So that is another real problem for families, for young parents and for students, who might have been working for a long time in casual employment, who might have done the right thing and who might have been treated harshly by employers but who will not be able to bring a claim unless they can come up with enough money to do so. That is not the sort of system we want to live with. It is inappropriate. The government should spend time with the small businesses they constantly say they are talking to and explain to them how they could use the current laws to employ people appropriately—how they could use probation periods and give employees a decent hearing and the notice that they should have before the employer terminates them. Then we would not have to keep debating this bill time and again. We would be able to move forward on some of the things that need to happen to give people security in this country. That is what the minister and members on the other side of the House should be interested in. They should be interested in their constituents having secure employment and being treated decently. If they are not treated decently, they should be able to complain to someone and they should not have to pay through the nose to be able to do so. I do not believe that the backbenchers on the government side really understand what the government is trying to do here. They believe in the minister for workplace relations. They are taking him at his word, which is a pretty dangerous thing to do. They should look a little more closely at what their constituents, their students and their young mums are saying about casual employment because they are not interested in this sort of ideological battle year in, year out. They are interested in getting secure employment and decent rights. They do not mind having flexible employment if they can get a little predictability. Members on the other side of the House should be doing all they can to achieve that, not everything they can to take those rights away. I hope I am not going to be here year in, year out, for however long I have the right to be in this parliament, arguing with the government over this legislation, which should be withdrawn.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.Ministerial Arrangements1012714:00:0010127Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister has been unavoidably detained for a few moments, as he is returning from delivering an address at the National Press Club. If it suits the convenience of the House, I suggest that any questions that may have been directed to the Deputy Prime Minister be left until he returns. If that does not suit the convenience of the House, I will endeavour to answer them myself.Questions Without Notice101271012714:00:0010127Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Has the minister read the Prime Minister's statement to the House yesterday, and the documents tabled by the Prime Minister, concerning the interim report by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security on the performance of Australian agencies prior to the terrorist attack in Bali on 12 October? Is the minister also aware of concerns raised in the media, including by me, both last night and this morning concerning the scope of the terms of reference of the Blick inquiry? Can the minister confirm that the terms of reference of the Blick inquiry did not authorise Mr Blick to report on whether or not the intelligence material on threats to Australians in South-East Asia was accurately reflected in travel advisories, embassy bulletins and global travel bulletins issued by his own department in the period prior to 12 October? Can the minister now inform the House as to whether there has been any external independent inquiry into the adequacy of his department's travel advisories before 12 October? Minister, will you now commission a properly constituted independent inquiry into the adequacy of your travel advice to the Australian public for the 12 months prior to 12 October?10128Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I notice that he has been out in the media, of course, because he loves the media. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MP4G4Mr DOWNER—The member for Fraser interjects. You must hate the media, because we never hear of you. You are the shadow Treasurer. You should be up there: `My profile on the economy—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will come to the question. He has the call.4G4Mr DOWNER—My answer to the honourable member's question is that, following an examination of the Blick report on the question of whether the government had any information relating to an attack in Bali prior to the Bali bombing on 12 October, I think the Blick report is perfectly clear. As the Prime Minister and I in particular have said, both in this House and elsewhere, the government did not have any information that was not reflected in travel advisories. What we did not know could not be reflected in travel advisories and, therefore, the Bali attack was not reflected in the travel advisories. Were the travel advisories adequate on the basis of the information we had available to us? The answer to that is clearly that they were. From a period going back before 11 September 2001, going back, for example, to October 2000, the travel advisories put out by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade alerted visitors to Indonesia, for example, to the risks and dangers there. I do not have the information with me, but I can recall off the top of my head that information made available to the United States in the last quarter of last year about possible threats to Americans in Indonesia and more broadly in South-East Asia, if my recollection serves me well, was reflected not only in American travel advisories but in ours. I have made this point, despite what the member for the Griffith has been saying up in the press gallery with a few of his mates.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order which goes to relevance. The core question was: has there been any external inquiry?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—There is no point of order.4G4Mr DOWNER—If the honourable member were interested in the issue rather than in making a relatively puerile party political point, he would know that on the serious point of the travel advisories—none of which I suspect the member has ever read—we have done a careful comparison between the three types of travel advisory that were issued by our own Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the period immediately before 12 October. We have compared those travel advisories with the travel advisories issued by the United States and the United Kingdom in a similar period. I tabled the Australian travel advisories, but, more to the point, I tabled the travel advisories of the United States and the United Kingdom in this parliament for members to read.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister continues to evade the question, which is whether there has been an external inquiry into this.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Griffith will resume his seat or I will deal with him. Under the standing orders, the member for Griffith was granted a great deal of licence, and he asked a question that was a series of questions over a range of issues dealing with travel advisories. The minister is entirely in order.4G4Mr DOWNER—Having tabled those travel advisories, I make two points about them. In the first place, the Australian, American and British travel advisories were not identical but extremely similar. Allegations that have sometimes been made that somehow Australia's travel advisories were much more downgraded than American and British travel advisories are not correct, as I explained to the House back in October when this issue was very much at the forefront of people's minds. The second point I would make is that since the week after the Bali bombing, not only have the opposition had intelligence briefings but they have had available to them all these travel advisories. At no period have they called for an inquiry into the travel advisories.1012914:07:0010129May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. With the busy holiday season fast approaching, would the minister inform the House of steps the government is taking to protect the welfare of Australians travelling overseas? Is the minister aware of any recent comments in relation to this issue?10129Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for the genuine and sincere question that she has asked. As the Prime Minister and I told the House, and have stated publicly on several occasions, clearly the safety of Australians is our highest priority, both in Australia and overseas. As the holiday period approaches, it is important that Australians planning overseas travel should not be complacent about travel advisories. Sadly, the international environment is not as safe today as it has been in the past. The attacks in Bali and other terrorist incidents in our region and around the globe underscore the risk to travellers.As far back as August 2001, my department warned Australians of the heightened risk of terrorism in our region and beyond. Even prior to this, in Jakarta we advised Australians of the threat of bomb explosions. We said then that Australians should be aware of the risks when they undertake travel. Obviously, that is all the more so now. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade issues advice for 125 different countries. These advisories contain information about local conditions, including threats to security and personal safety. Where the government is aware of specific threats to Australians, these will be reflected in a strong travel advice warning. For example, and it is significant to look at an example, we continue to advise Australians to defer non-essential travel to Indonesia, including Bali, in recognition that threats against Australians and Australian interests in Indonesia remain high, given possible terrorist action and civil disorder. Australians in Indonesia should continue to exercise extreme caution in commercial and public places frequented by foreigners, and those concerned about their security should consider departure. Overnight our embassy in Jakarta issued a reminder to Australians in Indonesia to be aware of these warnings. Obviously, given the large number of Australians who travel overseas, it is particularly important that the government does its very best to warn those Australians of any particular dangers or difficulties they may confront—remembering that last year Australians made 3½ million trips overseas. In an effort to ensure that important travel advice reaches the widest possible audience, we continue to work with the travel industry and the media to further widen the dissemination of travel advice. Hits on my department's web site have increased 250 per cent over the last year which, I suppose, in the circumstances is hardly surprising, and it is certainly very welcome. Finally, Australians who are contemplating travel overseas should consult the web site or, of course, they are welcome to telephone the department to get any information in relation to risks and dangers that they could confront when they travel overseas.1012914:11:0010129Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you recall telling the House on Tuesday of last week that your minister for taxation, Senator Coonan, has had no beneficial interest in the Pittwater property and that she and Andrew Rogers `have taken very great care' to—EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is incumbent upon the member for Werriwa and other members to at least give the minister her correct title. She is not the minister for taxation; she is the Minister for Revenue and the Assistant Treasurer. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will refer to the minister by her correct title.K26Mr LATHAM—I will recommence the question to the Prime Minister. Do you recall telling the House on Tuesday of last week that your Minister for Revenue, Senator Coonan, has had no beneficial interest in the Pittwater property and that she and Andrew Rogers `have taken very great care' to keep their financial interests separate? How then, Prime Minister, do you explain the contents of this building application lodged with Pittwater Council in 1994 to rebuild the Pittwater house, an application that shows Andrew and Helen Rogers as joint clients and applicants for the redevelopment? Prime Minister, how can Senator Coonan have no financial interest in a multimillion dollar house and property that she jointly redeveloped? 10130Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I do recall the answer I gave. I have not seen that application. This is the first I have heard of it.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I seek leave to table the joint application lodged with Pittwater Council in 1994 by Andrew and Helen Rogers, for the full rebuilding and redevelopment of the property at Paradise Avenue, Pittwater.Leave granted.1013014:13:0010130Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House how Australians have benefited from reductions in personal income tax by the current government? What is the recent history of attempts to reduce income tax and what have been the impediments to even greater personal tax reductions?10130Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Makin for her question. I can advise her, and I can advise members of the House, that in the year 2000 this government introduced the largest cuts in personal income tax in Australian history and cut personal income tax by $12 billion. Just to put that in context, if all this government had done when it came to office was index tax brackets by the consumer price index, people would be paying more tax today than they are because the income tax cuts introduced by this government were greater than all of the so-called `bracket creep' from 1996 to 2002. In fact, you are actually paying $500 less than if there had been full indexation over the whole course of this government.83UCox, David, MPMr Cox—What about the GST?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I am so pleased that the member for Kingston interjects, because my eye was taken to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald today from none other than the member for Kingston himself on the topic of tax cuts. I think the essence of his argument was that somehow the government's budget position was being unfairly or wrongly propped up by income tax rates. I regret to inform the House that the fundamental premise of this article is false. Let me quote:The headline cash balance appears to grow to a healthy surplus of $9.5 billion in 2004-05 and $9.7 billion in 2005-06.Wrong. As the MYEFO proves—and we have not had a question about the MYEFO in this House since it was released—on page 19, the headline cash balance in 2004-05 is $14.5 billion and in 2005-06 is $16.9 billion. So first of all you understate a figure by $5 billion in order to make a false claim. It reminds one of previous offences—previous offences in the Willis office in 1996.We then have, in the Sydney Morning Herald, this complaint that the top marginal income tax rate, which after the tax cuts was put up to 142 per cent of earnings, now cuts in at 129 per cent of earnings. That is his second big complaint. Can I inform the House that the reason why it cuts in at that level is that the Labor Party opposed our increase. The government bill was to push out the top marginal tax threshold to $75,000, and the Labor Party opposed it. We now have the member for Kingston running around and saying what a terrible government it was. It was overcome by the Labor Party veto in the Senate.The third thing we ought to take into account in relation to that is that not only did the Labor Party oppose the government's tax plan, which was to kick that out to 229 per cent, but the Labor Party opposed this government's income tax cuts generally. Let me read from the second reading debate and the amendment by the member for Hotham in relation to this government's personal income tax cuts. He said:I move: ... ... ...“the House requests that the bill be withdrawn and redrafted to produce a fairer tax system with no GST, and in particular to overcome the following deficiencies—listen to this— the fiscal profligacy of the Government's planned personal tax cuts ... The Labor Party sought to condemn the government for `fiscal profligacy' because its personal income tax cuts were so great, and the member for Kingston now wants to write articles complaining that they are not great enough. He himself said in relation to that matter that they were too great. I think he called them `unjustified' or some such word.The third point I want to make about the member for Kingston and his ingenuous article in the Sydney Morning Herald—83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—Ingenious.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Ingenuous is the word. You should know how to be careful with language: you have used it on the member for Hotham.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer will address his remarks through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—After reading this article based on false budget figures complaining that our tax cuts were not great enough when he himself opposed them for fiscal profligacy, you might actually get some idea that he was in favour of tax indexation of scales. I am sure that was a little suggestion that the member for Kingston was trying to put out there. He shakes his head now. He is not in favour of indexing tax brackets.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Treasurer will address his reply through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He shakes his head now, Mr Speaker. It was an apposite day. You might be able to fool the Sydney Morning Herald but down at the National Press Club the Leader of the Opposition was asked this question by Michael Harvey:Will you or would the Labor government consider indexing the tax scales to inflation?Bear in mind that this article today is a criticism of the government on tax indexation. The same day that he is writing that article, the Leader of the Opposition is asked whether he would consider indexing tax scales to inflation.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.CT4Mr COSTELLO—They always object at the critical moment, Mr Speaker.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—I was just wondering whether there is trouble with the audio system in this House. He has been shouting for the last five minutes.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Braddon will resume his seat. I point out to the member for Braddon that the member for Lilley and I, along with others, earlier this year attended the Abyssinian Baptist Church and, while none of us were complaining about the service, following that service none of us are likely to complain about the level of noise either.CT4Mr COSTELLO—The Sydney Morning Herald article was based on false figures. Secondly, there was criticism that the tax threshold cuts in too low when he opposed it being reduced to that level and stopped it being reduced further and a suggestion that somehow the Australian Labor Party may be in favour of indexing tax scales. On the very same day that he writes this article, this question is asked by Michael Harvey to the Leader of the Opposition:... will you or would the Labor Government consider indexing the tax scales to inflation?CREAN: The answer to the last part of the question is no, we won't be indexing. Those who want to argue it, of course they can argue it, but I don't support the straight indexation.In other words, `We'll have old Coxie out there arguing it, but it's not the Australian Labor Party policy.' It is not the Australian Labor Party policy because the Australian Labor Party never implemented it in 13 years of government; it is not the Australian Labor Party policy because the Australian Labor Party opposed the personal income tax cuts that this government put in place; and it is not the Australian Labor Party policy because the Australian Labor Party is, at this moment, opposing the government's expenditure reduction measures in a forlorn attempt to increase Commonwealth expenditures, and it has no inclination whatsoever to contain them. This is nothing but one of those ambiguous, self-contradictory, `walk both sides of the street' positions of the Australian Labor Party which have got it into so much policy pain.1013214:23:0010132Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, now that he has had time to examine the joint redevelopment application lodged on behalf of Helen and Andrew Rogers for Paradise Avenue, Pittwater. Prime Minister, given that your Minister for Revenue, Senator Coonan, has a very clear financial interest in the Pittwater property as the joint developer of the land and house, isn't it clear that she is also jointly responsible for the avoidance of land tax on the property and that she enjoyed a financial benefit from this practice? Prime Minister, isn't it unacceptable for your Minister for Revenue to avoid the payment of land taxes over the past four years while she has been collecting $200 billion in revenue each year from honest, hardworking Australian taxpayers?10132Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The member for Werriwa has made a number of assertions. I do not accept those assertions. I have had the opportunity to do but one thing, and that is to examine the document that was tabled. It does not describe Andrew and Helen Rogers as joint developers; it describes them as clients of the party who lodged the application, and it does not—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—They're clients of the architect!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The basis of the assertion that Senator Coonan had no beneficial interest in the Pittwater property is the absence of any reference to Helen Coonan on the title of the property and the absence of any evidence to me or to this parliament—and, to my knowledge, to anybody else—of some equitable arrangement or understanding which conferred a benefit on her. Whilst the member for Werriwa may be excited about this particular document, all I can say to the House at this stage is that, as always, if it is appropriate for me to provide any additional information to the House then I will. All I can say is that the excitement of the member for Werriwa may well be premature. The plan refers to Andrew and Helen Rogers as the clients. It is not uncommon, according to my understanding, that it does not necessarily follow that people so described in an application enjoy equal beneficial ownership of the property or, indeed, of the improvements.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I've got seven years in local government, pal. Ask anyone in local government: she's the developer.Honourable members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I know we have an enormous number of people experienced in the building industry on the other side, but there are a few people on this side of the House who know. I would counsel the member for Werriwa not to engage in premature excitement on this particular subject. I would advise him not to do that. I stand by the observation that I have made before: on the information as communicated to me, the senator does not have a beneficial interest in the Pittwater property. That remains the information as communicated to me, and the attempt therefore to allege that she has avoided tax lacks substance. Perhaps if the member for Werriwa had spent a little more time trying to understand how these things really work rather than simply counting numbers in Labor Party branches, he would appreciate that if you are named as a client on the covering document of a plan lodged with a local council then it does not automatically follow that you have a beneficial interest.1013214:28:0010132Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is to the Minister for Ageing, representing the Minister for Health and Ageing. Is the minister aware of any alternative policies or recent comments concerning the future of the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate? How will the alternative policies affect the 8.7 million Australians with private health insurance?10132Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLPMinister for Ageing10—I thank the honourable member for Petrie for her question and acknowledge her keen interest in these matters. Indeed, I attended a forum in her electorate some little time ago, and quite a number of constituents from her electorate were there to talk about health and ageing issues. Yesterday at the National Press Club the Leader of the Opposition outlined his policies on the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate. He said:If that means we— namely, the ALP—have to look again at the Private Health Insurance Rebate—with all its inefficiencies and rorts—we won't be afraid to do it.We know that the Labor Party has the private health insurance rebate under review. Part of the review is being conducted by the deputy leader of the Labor Party, the member for Jagajaga, who once described the rebate as:... the worst example of public policy ever seen in this parliament.There are two important consequences of what the Labor Party is talking about in relation to this. No member should forget the fact that, for the 8.7 million Australians with private health insurance, what the Labor Party is proposing to do in terms of abolishing the 30 per cent rebate is to increase the tax on those people, to slug families in Australia by between an extra $600 and $1,200 per year—a major slug. In the case of the member for Petrie's electorate, this would affect some 25,000 constituents and, of course, all of their children and families as well.In addition to a tax slug on ordinary Australians, there are some real health benefits which would be put in jeopardy by taking away this rebate. Only recently we saw, for the first time in the history of Medicare, the number of public hospital admissions in Australia fall by almost 5,000, yet, at the same time, the number of private health admissions grow by 245,000. So what the Labor Party is doing, in addition to slugging ordinary families between $600 and $1,200 a year, is saying that it will add almost a quarter of a million people to the public hospital queues in Australia. This would exacerbate the situation we have, where states and territories in Australia have reduced public hospital beds by 14,000 over the last decade. How would this affect ordinary Australians, those people who have procedures now performed in private hospitals? For example, 50 per cent of chemotherapy is now performed in private hospitals. Of major procedures for breast cancer, 53 per cent are performed in private hospitals, as are 56 per cent of cardiac valve procedures and 60 per cent—six out of 10—of major joint replacement and limb reattachment procedures. These are the procedures, these are the health measures which the Labor opposition wants to put in jeopardy by its change to the rebate.Yesterday, I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition was also making some vague, ambiguous offering about tax cuts in the same speech. So we again have the Labor Party trying to walk both sides of the road, at one stage suggesting some vague promise of a tax cut in the future, yet at the same time saying that it will take away the 30 per cent rebate—which, in effect, will be a tax slug to ordinary Australians, to 44 per cent of the population, including a million Australians on less than $20,000 a year. The ALP is ending this year as it started: without any comprehensive policy. I note, however, that some in the opposition actually understand this. I understand that the Chief Opposition Whip has recently been circulating a reminder to members of the ALP to attend an end of year party. This party is appropriately entitled `The ALP end of year meltdown'. This is the ALP's version of Three Mile Island. Someone should have told the member for Fremantle that last week was a bit premature for the meltdown. We have had the member for Grayndler running around like a free radical ever since, we have got the member for Rankin and the member for Lilley supplying the fissile material and, of course, the Leader of the Opposition has been reduced to 50 per cent. Just one serious question on this: surely it is a whole of year meltdown?1013314:33:0010133Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it true that land taxes on the Pittwater property could only have been avoided up until 2 December 2002 if Senator Coonan and Andrew Rogers declared separate principal places of residence? Prime Minister, do you believe this arrangement to be an honest one, especially given Senator Coonan's financial interests as joint developer for the Pittwater house and land?10133Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—That question asks for a legal opinion, and I have no intention of giving a legal opinion without—83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—Honest John! 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lalor!ZD4Mr HOWARD—I understand my limitations—I certainly do—and one thing I understood very early in this place is that, when you come to the dispatch box, you should bear two things in mind: you have an obligation of candour, and you have an obligation to understand your own limitations. Whilst those constraints might not be appealing to those who sit opposite, it certainly applies to me. First of all, I do not intend to give a legal opinion. Secondly, the assumption on which the question is based is joint ownership of the property. That is the assumption on which the question is based. On the information available to me, the assumption has not been verified or supported. The fact that an architect or builder lodges an application and describes people in a particular way—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Like a joint development?ZD4Mr HOWARD—does not of itself mean that that information is accurate.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—It does not mean that it is accurate. One of the things that I just happened to notice, which is certainly not conclusive but is certainly of passing interest, is that the minister is described as `Helen Rogers'. Although she is married to Andrew Rogers, to the best of my knowledge—and I have known Helen and many of my colleagues have known her for a lengthy period of time—I do not think she has ever used her second husband's surname. She has been known, both socially and professionally, as Helen Coonan. It could well be—and I am not asserting this—that the builder or the architect who lodged this application—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It's a typo!ZD4Mr HOWARD—made absolutely no inquiry as to the ownership situation—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Like you!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! I am tired of persistently asking the Leader of the Opposition to abide by the standing orders. The Prime Minister has the call.ZD4Mr HOWARD—In the end, in time, this can be established. Members of the opposition can allege these things but, in order to establish your case, you have to demonstrate that, at law, Helen Coonan has a beneficial interest in the property. Now, you have not done that. You can only demonstrate that at law if you can produce a title deed which shows an interest on Helen Coonan's part or if you can produce some kind of agreement between Helen and her husband which manifests a beneficial interest in the property. There is, on the public record, a denial by Andrew Rogers of any beneficial interest other than his own. You have the denial of the senator.It would have been very simple for the member for Werriwa or the member for Lilley to have searched the title deeds and found out whether the names Coonan and Rogers appeared on the title deed, but they have not done that. Maybe they have. I would be surprised if they have not done that. That would have been very easy to do. I simply say to those opposite: if you are alleging a beneficial interest, prove it. I invite the members of the opposition to prove it. If you can prove it then obviously that will make a difference to the situation. It will mean that the information that I have been given and the information that I have communicated to the House at question time has been wrong. If it is, I am prepared to acknowledge that. I have acted, in everything that I have said in relation to this matter, on the information that I have been given and to the best of my knowledge and belief.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—She'll be gone by Christmas.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Watson is warned.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Let me sum up again in relation to the property at Clareville. It is my understanding—based on what I have been told by Senator Coonan and what I have been told, through my office, by her husband, Andrew Rogers—that the Clareville property is owned by Andrew Rogers and that his wife does not have a beneficial interest in it. I have not been provided with any evidence to countermand that. I have certainly not been provided with any evidence of the title deeds suggesting that that is wrong. It is self-evidently consistent with the way people arrange their affairs that, if two people with professional careers have second marriages, they would keep their assets and interests separate. So, on the face of it, those arrangements are consistent with what people would be expected to do in that circumstance. There is no evidence in relation to the title deed. The only possible evidence is the production of this development application, or part of it, by the member for Werriwa. It is a document that contains the description applied by the developer or by the architect. That does not automatically mean that that information is correct; all it means is that that is what the applicant put on this document. I suggest to the House that if the member for Werriwa, the member for Lilley or the Leader of the Opposition had more cogent evidence then we would have heard it by now. I will have some further inquiries made. I will get some further advice on this and I will bring that back to the parliament. Then I will invite the member for Lilley, the member for Werriwa and the Leader of the Opposition to apologise to the senator for slurring her character.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—My question is to the Prime Minister.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Werriwa. K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I jumped before the member for Solomon did, Mr Speaker. That is why you called me.ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Deakin. The member for Werriwa is well aware that the chair attempts to facilitate everybody by recognising them, assuming that they may have a point of order. Since the member for Werriwa did not have a point of order, in the normal rotation of things the question would go to the government. I had looked to the government side, someone on the government side had jumped and so had the member for Werriwa. I was facilitating a point of order. I am very happy not to facilitate points of order if that would suit the opposition.1013514:41:0010135Tollner, David, MPMr TOLLNER00AN4SolomonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. Would the minister advise the House of alternative detention arrangements being pursued by this government? Is the minister aware of any other proposals?10135Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Solomon for his question. I was surprised, in a sense, at the question because, in view of the amount of lobbying of me that he has been doing on the issue of East Timorese asylum seekers, I thought he might try something else. Can I just say, in relation particularly to alternative detention arrangements for women and children, that I tabled last week a series of instructions that I have given in relation to unaccompanied minors, women and children, and those who require special needs to be addressed. Obviously, I am very keen to pursue those matters. If the opposition want to try to help in relation to those questions, they might try and assist with the South Australian Labor government, which keeps on saying to me, in relation to these issues, that there needs to be elaborate consultation at a local level in relation to when we might be able to implement it at Baxter.I think the Labor Party is in a position to be able to play a constructive role in relation to that if they wish, instead of having the Premier of South Australia writing to me saying that everything is hostage to consultations. Let me just make it clear that there is a difference between the government and the opposition in relation to these matters. The opposition believes that if you are going to release women and children, you have to also release any adult male partner.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard—They are called fathers, usually.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Well, that is the view that the opposition has come to.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Lalor. The minister will respond to the question, not the interjections.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Once that happens, there is a very substantial issue. They are saying that people should be released subject only to health and security clearances, and we already know what they have in mind in relation to security clearances—you do not even have to know who they are before you are involved in security checking. But they are also talking about hostels. It interested me to see what they had in mind because the way in which they seem to be addressing this matter is to suggest that the detainees themselves ought to manage the environment in which they are held. The opposition is arguing for self-managed hostels—managed by the asylum seekers themselves. Let me give you a few examples of that sort of approach. In the United States of America, people in those sorts of circumstances do not remain available. Forty-two per cent of aliens in the United States of America who claimed a credible fear and were released failed to appear at their immigration hearings. In Ireland, 2,500 asylum seekers were reported as evading deportation orders. In Switzerland, 60 per cent of failed asylum seekers simply disappear. In Norway, the number of asylum seekers who have disappeared from their refugee reception centres this year is of the order of 3,600—an 85 per cent increase over the previous year.If you were to pursue the sort of approach that the opposition is advocating, you can see clearly what would happen from the experience elsewhere. The part of Labor policy that particularly concerned me was the part that provided for a return to high security detention of those people who failed to abide by the rules. Then I read the document to find out what it said of high security detention facilities. The document said:High security detention facilities will be based on the alternative detention trial at Woomera.If members are interested, I will show them a photo of the high security facility at Woomera. Mr Speaker, I also have a copy for the Leader of the Opposition if he is interested. I am more than happy to table it for the benefit of all members.83LGillard, Julia, MP0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I also have a copy for you, if you wish.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister, address your remarks through the chair.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—If you want to get a very clear indication of high security detention facilities—9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! The member for Sturt persists with interjecting.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order relates to orderly behaviour in the chamber. Previous Speakers have dealt severely with those who throw papers across the desk.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—As the member for Brand would be aware, I did in fact caution the minister about his action and was even more indignant when he addressed his remarks to the gallery. The minister will retrieve the photo that he attempted to hand to the Leader of the Opposition and table it if he wishes.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Mr Speaker, I would not want to intend any offence, particularly to the Leader of the Opposition, but let me just say that it is interesting that the Labor Party is developing proposals that talk of high security detention facilities based upon the alternative detention trial at Woomera when it is quite clear that, if you put people into a residential community with neighbours, it cannot be adequately secured. The only point I would make is that, if you intend to go down this route, it is probably also important to know what it is likely to cost. The preliminary costings on this part of Labor's initiative, based upon detention numbers as at 1 July 2000, are in the region of $90 million. I have used July 2000 because I cannot see how Labor's policy will do anything other than to send a signal to people abroad, which will increase the numbers coming to Australia.83LGillard, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lalor has been allowed a great deal of latitude. If she persists, I will deal with her. Before I recognise the member for Werriwa, let me restate to the House the obligation under the standing orders to address remarks through the chair. The use of the word `you' only tends to personalise either the question or the answer, and that is why it is excluded from the standing orders. 1013714:49:0010137Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the contents of his Ministerial Code of Conduct, which says:Ministers must be honest in their public dealings and should not intentionally mislead the parliament or the public.Is the Prime Minister aware that his Minister for Revenue, Senator Coonan, told the Senate last Monday week:I have absolutely no interest and never have had any interest in any property at Pittwater.Given Senator Coonan's interest as joint developer at the Pittwater property, as shown on official documents, under the New South Wales Local Government Act, stamped and approved by Pittwater Council, Prime Minister, isn't this a straightforward case of the minister breaching your code of conduct?10137Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—From the information available to me, the answer to that question is no.1013714:50:0010137Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister update the House on recent developments to strengthen Australia's aviation security arrangements?10137Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question about this very important matter. As I have said in this place, the government have already substantially tightened Australia's aviation security arrangements. We have introduced tighter passenger and carry-on baggage screening. We have extended it to more regional airports and more internationally checked baggage is being screened than ever before—up to 100 per cent on certain specified international flights. Over 150 additional protective service officers have been deployed at 11 airports throughout Australia, and air security officers have been flying on some thousands of flights since the end of last year.It is now prudent to move ahead in view of the international climate. After extensive consultation with the aviation industry in the context of that changing climate I have announced today at the National Press Club a number of measures. The government will require all airports that handle scheduled jet operations to screen all passengers and their carry-on baggage, including those flying on propeller services. As a result, the number of airports where security screening is required will certainly increase. In addition, we will introduce screening for passengers and carry-on baggage at additional airports where an airport operator or airline requests that security standards should apply. The airport operator or airline, we would envisage, would cover the cost of the screening facilities.We have heard some suggestions that screening should be extended to all 150 airports that handle scheduled services, including ones that handle a very small number of flights. I want to make it plain that, based on the best advice from our risk assessment agencies, the smallest of those, some of which carry only minimum numbers of flights, do not warrant such extensive screening programs. But all categorised airports—all 37 of them across Australia—which already have to have security plans in place, will be upgraded. We will be requiring upgrades to the capability of all passenger screening points. Upgraded equipment will see the use of cutting-edge technology—it does continually improve around the world—including some Australian technology. We will be right at the forefront with the equipment that we will be looking to have installed.I have touched on the fact that Australia has been screening checked baggage on a significant number of international flights for a while. It is now appropriate, though, to move to 100 per cent checked bag screening for all international flights. My department will be working with the industry to bring that into effect by the end of December 2004, which is a full year ahead of the deadline imposed by ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organisation. We will also be requiring the operators of Australia's major domestic terminals to introduce checked bag screening for domestic services on the same timetable—that is to say, the end of 2004. It cannot be done immediately, but it will be done as quickly as is possible, as the extensive modifications that will be required at many airports will allow and as the technology is able to be purchased, because there is tremendous demand for some of this more sophisticated technology around the world. These extensive measures will cost around $180 million over the next two years. The cost will be borne largely by the aviation industry, who are responsible for installing the equipment and providing security screening in accordance with the government's requirements, although we will cover, for example, the $4½ million or so cost of upgrading security at Christmas and Cocos islands. I emphasise that there will not be a government levy on the tourism industry, whose future depends of course on air travel remaining secure and travellers feeling confident in that security.The final but very important point I want to make in the context of this country being able to draw great succour from the capacity of its security agencies and those who form risk assessments is that we will keep our aviation security regime—as, indeed, we have been doing since September 11 in particular—under continuous review. We will be upgrading. We do have a capacity—we have used it in the past and we will in the future—to respond very quickly to a change in the level of alert. 849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—There is still no security—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Braddon!849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—at Burnie and Devonport airports. You are an absolute—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Braddon!4K4Mr ANDERSON—I want to assure the travelling public in Australia that we will not hesitate, wherever necessary, to respond to risk assessments as they are put to us by the relevant experts.9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Sturt!9V5Pyne, Chris, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Sturt!1013814:56:0010138Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—I look forward to receiving the Treasurer's official estimates of bracket creep over the next four years.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Kingston will come to his question.83UMr COX—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of the widespread practice of land tax avoidance in New South Wales based on falsely claiming separate residence for couples who actually lived together? Prime Minister, doesn't this scheme also have implications for future Commonwealth capital gains tax collections? Does the Prime Minister expect the Australian people to believe that Senator Coonan was unaware of this widespread practice when her family entered into arrangements of a similar nature and, as a consequence, avoided paying land tax for a period of about four years?10138Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have, from time to time, read of people who avoid land tax. How widespread it is in New South Wales compared with other parts of Australia I do not know. I do not know that so I cannot say whether I am aware of it being so widespread in New South Wales or anywhere else. But can I say to the member that the fact base on which his claim is made in his question is wrong. You have not established that. The fact base in that question was as substantial as the fact base in the Sydney Morning Herald article. You are making the claim under privilege which you do not have the courage to do outside this parliament. I invite those who claim that Senator Coonan is a tax avoider to go outside and say it.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I have done it. Where is my writ?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa!CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—What—you're going to break his arm, are you?ZD4Mr HOWARD—I invite him to go outside and say it, Mr Speaker.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—He's going to break our arms!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Treasurer, the Prime Minister has the call. K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Don't hit me, Red!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Werriwa!ZD4Mr HOWARD—The fact base on which the question is asked has not been established. You would have a valid argument, the member for Swan would have a valid argument, if you could establish the fact base—and you have not done that. It is clearly the case that Senator Coonan and her husband have separate assets and it is not an uncommon situation for two professional people on second marriages to keep their assets and their affairs completely separate. Nothing from the opposition, in all this fervid activity, has shaken that proposition. The Clareville property, on my advice, for relevant purposes has always been owned by Andrew Rogers. The Woollahra property has been owned by Senator Coonan. Andrew Rogers has dealt with the question of land tax liabilities. He has in fact paid, as I understand it, a significant amount of land tax on that property. My understanding is that he has paid a significant amount of land tax. There is no evidence of anything that has been avoided. There has been absolutely no evidence of that, but you come into this place and you make allegations under the cover of parliament privilege. It is very easy to do that.I wonder if the member for Kingston will be willing to repeat what he has just said outside. I wonder if he will be willing to do that. I doubt that he will. He does not get his Sydney Morning Herald articles right. On the information that I have been provided with—and I have no direct personal knowledge of these matters, obviously—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—How would I have direct personal knowledge of somebody else's business affairs? I am provided with information—as we all are in leadership positions—and, until that information is shaken by contrary information or by correction, I act in good faith in the belief that that information is correct. If you really had a knockout blow on this, like a title deed or some kind of evidence, you would produce it. But you have not and you are muckraking under parliamentary privilege.1013915:01:0010139Smith, Anthony, MPMr ANTHONY SMITH00APGCaseyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister inform the House of the most recent employment data? Could the minister inform the House of how the government's workplace relations policy has helped create better conditions for Australian workers, and whether there are any alternative policies in this area?10139Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Casey for his question. I can inform the member for Casey that the latest employment data confirms that this government has delivered to the Australian people higher pay for better work. In the two years to May average weekly full-time earnings went up by 7.1 per cent in nominal terms. Over the life of this government average weekly full-time earnings have gone up by more than 12 per cent in real terms. Over the life of this government basic award earnings have gone up by seven per cent in real terms. That compares with an actual drop of five per cent in basic award earnings during the life of the former government.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—You are truly the workers' friend.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Thank you; I return the compliment, Prime Minister. Higher pay is a function of higher productivity, which in turn is a function of the spread of workplace agreements which have been encouraged by the policies of this government. A decade ago two-thirds of Australian workers had their pay and conditions determined by awards. The data released yesterday shows that 79 per cent—almost four-fifths—of the work force have their pay and conditions determined by agreements, not by awards. The data also shows that 42 per cent of Australian workers are now on individual contracts, and that includes nearly 300,000 Australian workers on Australian workplace agreements. I have to confess that it is not all good news. I am afraid that the gender pay gap has slightly widened over the last two years. Some industries are still prone to pattern agreements, which are more prescriptive than awards. But, generally, freedom and flexibility are increasing features of the Australian workplace, thanks to the policies of a government that believes that workers and managers can be trusted to run their own lives and know their own interests. By contrast, the opposition believes that all bosses are vicious and all workers are weak, and is constantly trying to find new victims to justify new restrictions on the freedom of the Australian people. But the opposition is suffering from a bad case of TDS: truth deficit syndrome. First of all, we had the Leader of the Opposition telling a press conference last week that every shadow cabinet minister supported the boat people policy, just a few moments before Carmen Lawrence resigned. Then we had the Leader of the Opposition telling the Press Club yesterday that not a single shadow minister agrees with Carmen Lawrence, when we know that the member for Grayndler was applauding her in public. The hearse driver over there, the member for Grayndler, was applauding her in public. We know he is driving the hearse; has he set the date for the funeral yet?83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I thought it was appropriate for members to refer to other members by their seat.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Cowan is right, but I heard the minister address the member for Grayndler appropriately. If there was another occasion, I will draw his attention to it. I was much more concerned that he come—83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—He whinged about it earlier when it suited him.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Cowan, when I am responding to his point of order, might at least extend me the courtesy of being heard. I had indicated that the member for Cowan was in order; what more does he want? I am much more indignant about the fact that the minister ought to be able to return to the question.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Let me point out to members opposite—and this is more good news from the Howard government—that the latest figures show that some 15 per cent of federally registered certified agreements are non-union agreements, compared with just five per cent in 1997. On the subject of truth deficit syndrome, if the member for Werriwa had gone immediately to the title deeds of that property in Paradise Avenue, he would know that Senator Coonan does not—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—figure on those title deeds.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Minister! The minister will resume his seat!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—He is repeatedly uttering barefaced lies.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr Swan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister repeatedly ignored your ruling to sit down.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—If the member for Lilley had been following the procedures of the debate, he would be aware that I interrupted the minister when he—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I would very much like a facility that ensured that members were forced to stop, but it may not necessarily be welcomed by everybody.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister accused the member for Werriwa of telling barefaced lies. Will you ask him to withdraw that remark?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I was interrupting the minister in an effort to get him to stop but, if he reflected on the member for Werriwa, I will ask him to withdraw that reflection.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I am happy to withdraw any offensive reflection on any member in this House.Opposition members—Withdraw it! Withdraw it!EZ5Mr ABBOTT—I withdraw. I withdraw. I withdraw.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Watson will resume his seat. The minister has withdrawn.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Yes, I have, Mr Speaker. I was asked, in the very good question from the member for Casey, if there was any alternative policy. The alternative policy from members opposite is grubby muckraking on the theory that a scandal a day keeps the policy away and, more importantly, a scandal a day keeps challengers at bay. That is their policy: a scandal a day keeps challengers at bay. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The minister will come back to the question or resume his seat.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—If they have any serious allegations about Senator Coonan, they should make them.Opposition members interjecting—ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The other day, you ruled the word `moron' as unparliamentary. The words just mentioned by the minister are, I am sure in the view of most members of this parliament and those listening, far more derogatory and unparliamentary than those words that you required to be withdrawn earlier this week. I ask you to ask the minister to withdraw.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is aware that there was a good deal of noise in the chamber. I was listening closely to what the minister for workplace relations said; in fact, I interrupted him on a number of occasions. From memory, what he said in the latter part of his comment was addressed in a generalised and not specific sense. For that reason I did not take action. I will, as I always do in order to be even-handed about these things, check the Hansard and, if I am in error, I will report back to the member for Brisbane or the House as appropriate, as I have done in the past. Does the member for Brisbane still have some difficulty with this?ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—On the point of order, Mr Speaker, I thought the minister was quite clear in directing it at particular members of the opposition. The words he used about grubby muckraking—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I do not want to hear the words he used.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—were not, I thought, parliamentary language.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane will resume his seat.1014115:11:0010141McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his statement that the government would not act to protect the cars of Australian motorists until he has scientific advice on how much damage ethanol can do. Treasurer, doesn't Environment Australia already have a 62-page report detailing specific risks to motorists, including, from a long list, the following three: one, perishing and swelling of the fuel system causing hazardous fuel leaks; two, corrosion of metal components; and, three, a seven per cent drop-off in performance? Doesn't this document show that the final, second stage of that study is not due to be finished until April 2004? Is the Treasurer so keen on protecting the Prime Minister's mates that he will not even think about protecting motorists for another 16 months? That is almost four years after his government was first warned of the risks from high ethanol levels.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You required the minister for immigration to take back some documents that were put on the dividing between the government and the opposition. You have required the minister for workplace relations to withdraw a claim in relation to the member for Werriwa. In the interests of balance and even-handedness, I ask that you require the member for Fraser to withdraw the allegation that the Treasurer or I, or one of us or both of us, are acting `to protect mates', because that is palpably false.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I only point out to the Prime Minister that I had neither recognised the question nor the Treasurer when the Prime Minister raised a point of order. I had not, in fact, allowed the question and I had not called the Treasurer.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—I thought you had allowed the question because you had not interrupted.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I understand the confusion. I merely point out that under the standing orders I had not allowed the question and there was a silence that followed when I was about to indicate that I thought the reflection in the member for Fraser's question was out of order and ought to be withdrawn. 5I4Mr McMullan—Are you saying that the question is out of order?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I have not indicated that the question is out of order. I have indicated only that the phrase, which was the reason I had not immediately called the Treasurer, ought to be withdrawn.5I4Mr McMullan—I will, of course, withdraw. I was seeking to rise on the point of order which the Prime Minister raised and I would have appreciated the opportunity to speak about why I think the phrase is in order in the question, but I will withdraw because you have requested me to do so.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The phrase is out of order.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr Hatton—We'll keep that for the MPI.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Blaxland is warned.10142Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I entirely repudiate any suggestion that the Prime Minister or I are acting to help the Prime Minister's mates—real or imagined.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—An imaginary friend.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Member for Melbourne!CT4Mr COSTELLO—If that is the essence of this rather tawdry and paltry attack then it deserves condemnation—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—An imaginary friend, John!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I warn the member for Melbourne.CT4Mr COSTELLO—It speaks a lot about the people who make those allegations. As it turns out, after hearing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage on the radio this morning in relation to a story in the Sydney Morning Herald, I sought and obtained a copy of the report to Environment Australia—which I had not seen before—which is called A Literature Review Based Assessment on the Impacts of a 20% Ethanol Gasoline Fuel Blend on the Australian Vehicle Fleet, hoping this scientific report would resolve the matter as to what amount of ethanol was safe in a car. But unhappily it does not. It says in the executive summary:The impact of a 20% ethanol blend on engine and fuel system durability of the Australian vehicle fleet is unclear. In terms of engine wear the literature reviewed is vague, leaving the only valid conclusion that testing is required to obtain data to form a view.In its conclusions, it says:In many cases, there is incomplete, insufficient or conflicting information available, and hence vindicates the detailed testing program, which is to be undertaken as part of tender 34/2002, is warranted.I had not seen that report before. Hoping that this report may have resolved the issue, I sought and obtained a copy. The report reviews the literature and it confirms what I had previously understood to be the case—that the literature is inconclusive—and it calls for testing. That testing is being done by Environment Australia, as I have also indicated. When the minister has a recommendation to put to the cabinet then it will be considered by the cabinet and a decision will be made. It is not my place to put the recommendation to the cabinet; it is within the province of the Minister for the En-vironment and Heritage, who has been tasked through Environment Australia to look at these matters. I await his recom-men-dation, and the cabinet will make its decision accordingly.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the Treasurer table the document he was just quoting from?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Was the Treasurer quoting from a document?CT4Mr COSTELLO—I was quoting from it, and I table it. Can I indicate that it has been sent out to the industry, so it is not a secret document in any—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—That's not what was said on the radio this morning.CT4Mr COSTELLO—He always gives us our best points! It has actually been publicly released, it has been sent out to the industry and I table it.1014215:18:0010142Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of the potential benefits to Australians of a free trade agreement between Australia and the United States? How can Australians get involved in this process? 10143Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question, for his interest in the policy direction the government has taken in this regard and for his support of the government's policy direction of trying to pursue every avenue to open up opportunities across the world for Australia's exporters. Only a couple of weeks ago, during his visit to Australia, the United States trade representative Bob Zelick indicated to us that he was going to notify Congress of the Bush administration's intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Australia. A free trade agreement between Australia and the United States is almost a once in a lifetime opportunity. Given the size of the United States economy and our interests there, Australia stands to gain in a wide range of sectors. An economic analysis that has been undertaken indicates gains of some $4 billion per year from opening up and lowering tariffs into that market. Services companies will stand to gain from closer economic integration, and a free trade agreement with America will play a major role in attracting further US investment in Australia.The United States is Australia's largest trading partner. The value of the two-way trade relationship between Australia and the United States now stands at $45 billion. Interestingly enough, on the investment front, the story is just as significant. Australia, with a population of 19.5 million, is the eighth largest investor in the United States. The United States is the largest investor in Australia. Why wouldn't any responsible government pursue better opportunities and a free trade agreement with the United States? We know the Australian Labor Party are opposed to this. We know the Australian Labor Party are opposed to providing greater opportunities for Australia's exporters and investors.The first round of negotiations should be starting in around March 2003 when a delegation from the US will be in Australia. The government have engaged two Washington based lobbying firms to help argue our case in Washington and to give us every opportunity for a successful and productive outcome. We have also called on the public for submissions from the private sector by 15 January 2003. We have undertaken significant research within government over the last couple of years in terms of the areas we want to address and what we want to pursue. We want to make sure we have not missed anything on behalf of the private sector. We will continue to draw heavily on the knowledge of Australian businesses that are experienced in the US market. Now is the time for business to work with government to ensure that those concerns are raised and that we do not miss any opportunities in these negotiations. Both the United States and Australia are committed to a comprehensive agreement, as is the requirement under the rules of the WTO.But, again, we all know that the Labor Party is opposed to all bilateral negotiations, particularly negotiations with the largest and strongest economy in the world. A comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States will deliver significant benefits to the Australian economy, something Labor opposes. A comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States will set a high standard for other free trade agreements around the world, again something the Labor Party opposes. A comprehensive free trade agreement will complement and invigorate the multilateral negotiations in the WTO in the Doha Round, again something the Labor Party opposes. But we are not surprised by the Labor Party's opposition to the policy direction the government has taken. In seven years, it has continually opposed every measure our government has put in place to benefit Australian businesses and Australian workers and the prospects for more jobs in the Australian economy.1014315:23:0010143Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. I refer to the ethanol damage report produced for Environment Australia. Minister, why did the government sit on this report? What other information does the department hold on ethanol that you won't release? Doesn't the report indicate risks regarding ethanol levels above 10 per cent? Why won't you make an interim determination for an ethanol cap in order to protect motorists? 10144Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for the Environment and Heritage10—I thank the honourable member for Wills for his question. This report has not been sat upon or withheld by the government. It is a report which has recently been received, and as soon as I received it I made it public. It is publicly available. There has been absolutely no sitting on the report. The report is a literature review. It is the first stage of the scientific testing which the government has put in place to determine what an appropriate fuel standard for ethanol blends ought to be. The report clearly makes the point that there is a great deal of conflicting opinion and there is a paucity of information in relation to the impact of E20 blends. That is why the government has put the testing program in place. When the government receives results from the program, it will be able to make an informed decision.I would also like to make the point that the most disreputable feature of the Labor Party's attack on ethanol blends in petrol is that it is potentially eroding consumer confidence in these blends. Ethanol is a renewable fuel. Biofuels have a role to play in the production of Australian energy and Australian fuels. The government is committed to the support for biofuels, ethanol is a significant renewable biofuel and the effort of the Labor Party to discredit ethanol in the minds of consumers is potentially very damaging to what could be a fuel to support a significant Australian renewable energy industry.The final point I would make is that, to the extent that warranty issues are raised by E20 blends—and this is in the hands of the motor vehicle manufacturers themselves—the legal power to address these consumer issues and to ensure that consumers obtain appropriate information about the blends is in the hands of the state governments. The South Australian government has already put in place a regime. The Queensland government has put in place a regime. The issue of E20 blends has arisen solely in New South Wales. The Carr government has failed to exercise its legislative power to put in place appropriate regulation to secure consumer information. This power only exists at the state level. Two months ago I advised the New South Wales minister that this was a matter that the New South Wales government should address its attention to. It has not done so. It has taken no action throughout the eight years in which E20 blends have been available in New South Wales. If there are warranty issues being raised for consumers, the responsibility for ensuring that consumers receive appropriate information about ethanol blends rests with the Carr government in New South Wales. If the Labor Party feels so strongly about this, it should speak to its mates and ensure that consumers receive adequate information.1014415:27:0010144Ley, Sussan, MPMs LEY00AMNFarrerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Would the minister inform the House of the government's action to provide relief to small businesses struggling with the effects of the drought? Furthermore, how are the state governments cooperating with the federal government in this area?10144Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Industry, Tourism and Resources10—I thank the member for Farrer for her question. Like a number of members on this side of the House, including me, she certainly knows from first-hand experience the devastating impact that drought has not only on farmers but also on the farming community. The Howard government has listened and responded to the difficulties faced by small businesses in drought affected areas that are struggling to cope with the effects of drought. This is an unprecedented federal government initiative—and I have been involved with a few federal government initiatives in my time; one which involved the member for Hotham and another which involved the member for Griffith. The package is without doubt far more expansive than any other drought package ever put in place by a federal government. In recognising the difficulty of small businesses that are going through a very difficult time but that have a solid future, we have put in place an interest relief subsidy scheme for those small businesses that can subsidise debts of up to $100,000. Small businesses in exceptional circumstance areas will qualify for this assistance where they have a significant fall in turnover. Applications will also be considered from businesses outside EC areas that can show a very strong linkage to customers within an EC area. Payments of up to 50 per cent of a small business's interest bill on a loan of up to $100,000 or five percentage points, whichever is less, will be available to those small businesses for a period of up to two years. There are criteria attached to this assistance. The business must have a turnover of at least $50,000 per annum and employ fewer than 20 employees, although there is some discretion with regard to that, depending on the circumstances of the business. There must be a demonstrable effect from the drought. That has to be indicated by a 50 per cent fall in the turnover of the business. Centrelink offices in EC declared areas will deliver the initiative. Businesses that require further information can contact the call centre in Toowoomba on 13 23 16. I should add that to date—and this was only launched on Monday—that call centre has taken in excess of a hundred calls. Application forms are available from Centrelink offices and from the web.This initiative is to provide hope to those people, including small businesses, who are out there struggling with the effects of the drought. While the federal government are doing more than any other government has ever done, the member for Farrer asked me what the state governments are doing, and the answer is: very little. While we have allocated almost $1 billion in drought assistance, the state governments combined have allocated less than $60 million and have actually granted $10 million. Ten million dollars is less than half what this government have given in my electorate alone.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice101451014515:31:0010145Mr HOWARD,MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I wish to add to an answer.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister may proceed.ZD4Mr HOWARD,MPMr HOWARD—I was asked a series of questions today about the property at Clareville, in Sydney, owned by Mr Andrew Rogers. I have received a signed statement from Mr Rogers. I would like to read it into the Hansard, then I will table a copy of it. It reads:My attention has been drawn to questions asked in Parliament today of the Prime Minister and of my wife, Senator the Hon. Helen Coonan, in relation to a development application lodged in respect of a property owned by me at Clareville (also being referred to as Pittwater).The development application was lodged on my behalf by the builder or the architect working on the development project.I was not consulted by the builder or the architect about the description to be used in the development application.Senator Helen Coonan has never been known as Helen Rogers.Notices of sale lodged with the council and the waterboard many years before the development was made clearly indicated that I am the owner of the property. Rate notices have always been issued to me since I acquired the property.As I have previously publicly stated, the property is owned by me and at no time has Helen had any proprietary interest in it.Helen has also previously stated that she has no interest in the Clareville property and has never had an interest in it.Helen has not put one dollar into the property. She has no equitable or beneficial interest in the property and I reject absolutely any suggestion to the contrary.AJ Rogers QC11 December 2002They are the words of the person who is in a position to know. I invite the opposition, if they have some evidence that countermands that, to produce it, and I will investigate it. But, so far, I have been provided with nothing to shake my belief that the allegations made against the senator are malicious and wrong and unfair. They are designed to damage her reputation. They are done under parliamentary privilege to achieve that purpose. If the opposition cannot produce additional evidence, it is incumbent upon them, if they are honourable men and women, to withdraw their allegations. In the face of the clearest possible repudiation—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is aware that he is adding to an answer. ZD4Mr HOWARD,MPMr HOWARD—I am adding to an answer, Mr Speaker, and I have quite a bit to add to the answer.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As you are aware, the practice in this House of adding to an answer is to provide additional information. The Prime Minister is going beyond adding to an answer. He is adding commentary to his answer, beyond providing facts. He has read the letter out. It should be tabled, and that, Mr Speaker, is what I ask you to rule. The Prime Minister should seek indulgence. Indulgence is a different thing. He should know the standing orders.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is adding to an answer. There are certain constraints on the addition to an answer. RI4Prosser, Geoff, MP10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Forrest will withdraw that statement.RI4Prosser, Geoff, MPMr Prosser—I withdraw.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is aware that there are certain constraints. I was in the process of drawing his attention to those constraints when the member for Banks raised a point of order. The Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD,MPMr HOWARD—I simply conclude by saying that a very serious allegation was made. I have been able to provide, through the statement I have read out, a clear and explicit repudiation. I am invited to observe constraints and I accept those constraints. Mr Speaker, I invite you to draw the attention of the opposition to the constraints on them in raising matters that have no foundation.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Mr Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to table the document. We would all be interested in seeing Mr Rogers's residential address.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will resume his seat!Miscellaneous1014615:37:0010146SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Members will recall that on 23 October 2002 I tabled a report entitled Review by the Parliamentary Service Commissioner of aspects of the administration of the parliament. The review, conducted by Mr Andrew Podger, the Parliamentary Service Commissioner, was commissioned by the former President of the Senate and me in April this year to review the administration of security within Parliament House and to examine other aspects of the administration of the parliament with a view to greater cost effectiveness and practicability. In presenting the report, I invited comments from members, parliamentary staff and other interested parties. For his part, the President extended the same invitation when tabling the report in the Senate. Some 19 submissions have been received in response, mainly from staff of the parliamentary departments. The President and I have, as I reported to the House on 11 November 2002, confirmed earlier decisions in relation to security at Parliament House, including establishing the Security Management Board as a permanent body and strengthening the access control arrangements. We have also centralised the security function in the Joint House Department, as recommended in the Podger review, and are progressively implementing other measures in accordance with the immediate and longer term plans we have approved on the recommendations of the board.In inviting comment on the report on 23 October 2002, I indicated to the House that the President and I would consider at the end of November the remaining recommendations made by Mr Podger. These range from the creation of a shared services centre, providing services to the five parliamentary departments, to a more extensive restructuring which entails the amalgamation of the three service departments—the option strongly preferred by Mr Podger. I am advised that the Senate, having endorsed our decision in relation to security, is now awaiting a committee examination of the remaining Podger recommendations early in the next period of sittings in February 2003. Until this is completed, the President and I are unable to move forward jointly in respect of the proposals. I am conscious that there is a large degree of uncertainty among staff of parliamentary departments about the impact of possible structural changes. I regret that it is not possible to address these issues before the end of the parliamentary year, but it is necessary that the Senate's processes be followed before the President and I can jointly consider proposals for the structural reform of parliamentary administration, which we may put before our respective houses for consideration. I take this opportunity to indicate to the House that in my view the remaining Podger recommendations merit the close attention of all members. They go to issues of the reform of the administrative structure of the parliament to an extent recommended many times in the past by both sides of politics but never successfully implemented. These reforms now come at the recommendation of the independent Parliamentary Service Commissioner. Mr Podger's report invites us to consider adopting within the parliament similar broad-ranging public sector reforms to those that have been implemented across Commonwealth and state instrumentalities, under both sides of politics, over the past 20 years. The report challenges us, as parliamentarians, to hold our own administration to the same standards of structural efficiency, transparency and accountability which we demand in our oversight of government agencies. I will report to the House on these matters early in the autumn sittings next year. In the meantime, I again commend the Podger report to all members for their close attention and consideration.Questions to the Speaker101471014715:41:0010147SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 13 November, the member for Denison asked me a question about the cost of access by the media to television coverage of parliamentary proceedings. The Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff provides a range of services to the media at no charge. These services are: live feeds of the broadcast of proceedings of both houses, including televised committees to all media bureaux at no cost; replays of proceedings to the media at no cost; the maintenance of 88 television access panels used by the electronic media, principally the television bureaux, throughout Parliament House at no cost to the media; and master control room services to patch signals to various media outlets, again at no cost to the media. The department also provides some services on a commercial or cost recovery arrangement. These include: professional standard radio and television studio facilities, which are able to be hired by television channels on a commercial basis; and the provision of videotape copies of chamber and committee proceedings. Tapes are charged for on a cost recovery basis, which includes the cost of the tape—which varies significantly, depending on the format requested—and the time taken to retrieve the material to be copied. The cost for this service has not increased since July 2000. In summary, almost all broadcasting services provided to the media bureaux are provided free of charge. The one service for which cost recovery is imposed—that is, dubbed copies of proceedings—has remained unchanged in price for 2½ years. The one service for which commercial rates are charged—that is, studio hire—has also remained at the same price for the same time.Personal Explanations1014715:43:0010147Mr ALBANESE,MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?R36Mr ALBANESE,MPMr ALBANESE—I do, on a number of occasions.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Please proceed.R36Mr ALBANESE,MPMr ALBANESE—The heading of the article by Alan Ramsey on page 15 of today's Sydney Morning Herald is untrue. The contents of the article are the views of the author. The minister for workplace relations in question time today repeated the untrue suggestion contained in the article's heading. This suggestion is untrue. I have stated on the public record that I was at the member for Fremantle's press conference as her friend and colleague. I remain committed to serving as a minister in the Crean Labor government in two years time.15:44:0010147Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—I do.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The honourable member may proceed.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON—During question time the Minister for Trade said that I, as opposition trade spokesman, opposed the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations. I support the opening up of overseas markets to Australian products. Obviously the minister resents our support for the Doha Round, choosing to negotiate instead a preferential deal with the United States.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Rankin may not venture down that course. He will resume his seat.15:45:0010148Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—I do, most grievously.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The honourable member may proceed.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—Today in question time the member for Menzies, the Minister for Ageing, indicated that I, as Chief Opposition Whip, had forwarded to my parliamentary colleagues an invitation to an end of year party. I certainly have never done that and, quite frankly, not only was it misleading but I inform the member for Menzies that he does not add to a question unless the information is correct. All it does is put the answer itself in doubt.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Prospect is no longer dealing with a misrepresentation.15:46:0010148Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?83UCox, David, MPMr COX—I do, by the Treasurer during question time.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The honourable member may proceed.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—The Treasurer during question time suggested that I had misrepresented the budget MYEFO headline cash balance for 2004-05 and 2005-06. If the Treasurer adds the Access—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—This is an argument.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—It is not argument. If the Treasurer adds the Access Economics estimates for fiscal drag in each of those years of $5 billion and $6.2 billion—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Kingston is now advancing an argument. The member for Kingston must indicate that he has been personally misrepresented, which he has done. He cannot in fact advance an additional argument. He may indicate where the misrepresentation has occurred.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—The misrepresentation was that those estimates were not taken from the MYEFO. If you add the fiscal drag, you get the same figures that were in the MYEFO, proving my point.15:47:0010148Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Yes, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The honourable member may proceed.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—The misrepresentation arises out of the same article that the member for Grayndler referred to earlier, the article by Alan Ramsey in the Sydney Morning Herald. In that article the author projects some understanding of the deep mysteries and subtleties of subfactional arrangements, but I am certain that it comes as as much of a surprise to Mr Albanese and Senator George Campbell as to others that I am associated with the group which they represent.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Denison is aware that he is ranging wider than a personal explanation allows.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I attended the press conference for my own personal reasons and to show support for a colleague that I deeply honour and have much respect for.Questions to the Speaker101491014915:48:0010149Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. Are you aware that last night in the house an able-bodied member utilised a disability access toilet and, on finishing, was unable to open the toilet door? Are you also aware that some panic set in when the member believed he was trapped and he activated the duress alarm and also made an emergency mobile phone call to another member, resulting in the attendance of security personnel, who immediately opened the door and liberated the distressed member? My question to you, Mr Speaker, is whether it would be possible to advise members who may get caught short that many doors in access toilets do not open inward or outward but simply slide.10149SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am aware of the incident. Honourable members interjecting—10000The SPEAKER—Members will be aware that their attention ought not to be addressed to the galleries. The member for Cowan raised a matter that I am sure, by reason of its hilarity, is already well known to all members of the House. It is probably appropriate that at this festive season he alert us to these niceties of particular facilities in the house, but I do not think any further action is necessary.1014915:50:0010149Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. Recently an employee and a union representative approached me to discuss a question of security in the parliament and made allegations about non pass holder people in this parliament. The allegations are that people who are subcontractors and contractors, who have temporary passes without any photo ID, effectively are trading these passes, and thus they are being used improperly by some contractors. I understand these allegations have been investigated. I wonder if you could look into it and report back to the House.10149SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—If the employee in question has such concerns, he ought to raise them with me. I am conscious of the desperate effort being undertaken by the Joint House Department and by the Security Management Board to enhance security in the house. I do not believe that such arrangements are in place. If there is evidence of them, clearly I would pursue them instantly. Without any such evidence, I do not intend to take any action.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—With respect, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari on a further matter.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—The matter has been raised with me and I am not going to disclose the source of the information, but it seems to me appropriate that you investigate whether or not these passes are being abused.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari will resume his seat.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Are you going to investigate?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari will resume his seat.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—With respect, are you going to investigate?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari will resume his seat or I will deal with him.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—What is the answer?10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Lingiari is warned!1014915:51:0010149Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150 I ask that you write to the Treasurer seeking an answer to my question No. 255 placed on the Notice Paper nine months ago, on 20 March 2002.10149SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Fowler as the standing orders provide.Documents101491014910000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 21 of 2002-03 entitled Performance information in the Australian Health Care Agreement—Department of Health and Ageing.Ordered that the report be printed.Documents10150Mr TUCKEY (O'Connor—Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government) (3.53 p.m.)—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move:That the House take note of the following papers:Anglo-Australian Telescope Board—Report for 2001-02.Australian Communications Authority—Telecommunications performance—Report for 2001-02.Committee reports—Government responses to parliamentary committee reports—Response to the schedule tabled by the Speaker on 27 June 2002, 11 December 2000.International Labour Organisation—Submission report on ILO Instruments adopted in 2001.Official Establishments Trust—Report for 2001-02.Private Health Insurance Administration Council—Report on the operations of the registered health benefits organisations—2001-02.Snowy Mountains Council—Report for 2001-02.Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority—Report for 2001-02.Taxation Laws Amendment (Earlier access to farm management deposits) Bill 2002—Corrections to the Explanatory Memorandum.United Nations—Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination—Communication—No. 26/2002—Outline.Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment—Communications—No. 138/1999—Decision.No. 211/2002—Outline.International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—Communications—No. 1065/2002—Decision.No. 1087/2002—Decision.Human Rights Committee—Communication—No. 880/1999—Australian government's comments.Optional Protocol—Communication—No. 1053/2002—Outline.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance101501015010000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Before I call on the MPI, I point out to members who may be concerned that—and this relates to a matter raised in question time—had the MPI been directed in the way in which it were framed to a specific individual, it would have been out of order. It is not out of order in the way in which it is framed, being directed to a group. I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lilley proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The double standards of the Government in protecting the interests of their wealthy mates while Australian families struggle.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—15:54:0010150Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—This is clearly a government of the mates, by the mates and for the mates. Question time today demonstrated how true that is. The double standards of the government in protecting the interests of their wealthy mates while Australian families struggle are simply breathtaking. There is one sure, certain fact from the Prime Minister's replies today: there has been a conspiracy to avoid land tax in the Coonan-Rogers family. That is undeniable. And there has most possibly been a conspiracy to avoid capital gains tax in the Coonan-Rogers family. We have the proof of that. The proof has been laid bare in this parliament, because the minute we blew the whistle the back taxes were paid. The second most senior minister in the Treasury portfolio has failed to act appropriately in relation to the taxation arrangements that she and her husband are involved in.There is no doubt that this is most probably their dream home. A lot of money has been spent. Today we heard that her name on the development application did not necessarily mean that she was involved. Are we expected to believe that she has got no interest whatsoever in this dream home? We already know from their own admission that they live in each others' skins, but we are expected to believe that she has no interest at all in this North Shore dream home. The Prime Minister in this House has said that we should not be saying that they are linked. This born-again feminist, the Prime Minister of this country, expects us to believe that the Minister for Revenue is unaware of the investment in this property and completely uninterested in this property. That is simply incredible; it is simply unbelievable. I think most of that has been blown away during question time over the last few weeks. It is not just this one event. Through question time over the last few weeks we have asked questions about a lot of the mates—and there are many of them, which is why I say that it is a government of the mates, by the mates and for the mates. As in Animal Farm, some mates are more equal than others. Some of the pigs have their snouts in the trough, and there are plenty of them. What I would like to do today is to talk about some of that involvement. I would like to contrast this with the approach that the government takes to average families who cannot avoid the family debt trap built into the family payments system administered by that incompetent minister across the table, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Families who are innocently overpaid and who have played by the rules have their payments stripped. This government turns up like a thief in the night and takes away the overpayment without as much as a phone call or a letter. When we raise these matters in the parliament, the government gets up and denigrates those hardworking Australian families who play by the rules. That is why we say that this government has two standards: one for its mates—one for the top end of town—and a completely different standard for the rest. That is why its double standards are so breathtaking.The last 12 months have shown just how far the Howard government will go to protect and promote their mates—in particular, the financial interests of their mates—at the expense of the common interest of this nation and at the expense of hardworking Australian families who go to work each day, work hard, come home, cook the tea, look after the kids, and get up and do it again. But there is a different standard for the mates of the Howard government. Let us go through some of the events of the last 12 months, such as the `children overboard' affair and the government's protection of Peter Reith. The `children overboard' affair says so much about the double standards of the Howard government. Then we had the Heffernan affair, and the damage done to Justice Kirby. That senator slimed around the corridors of this parliament in an attempt to denigrate a great Australian.Then we had Peter Reith's involvement in the $850 million DIDS contract, where we were expected to believe that the winning tenderer, who hired the minister immediately he retired from parliament, did not derive any benefit from his advice. Of course, recently we have had Senator Coonan, the minister responsible for the collection of $200 billion of revenue, married to someone who is avoiding land tax and possibly capital gains tax, saying she did not know anything about it!5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis—`I know nothing'!2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—She knows nothing about it? Of course she knew about it, and that is why the back tax was paid so promptly. Then we have the exclusive support the government gave to Mr Honan and this whole tawdry affair of ethanol. This was a massive benefit conferred on one company against other companies. It had a very bad impact on a company in my electorate, Neumann Petroleum, which were discriminated against. It cost them a lot of money and it had a dramatic impact on their work force. Here is a government that puts its mates before motorists and puts its friends before the hard-working families of this country—the people who make it great, the people who pay the great bulk of taxation, the people who are expected to play by the rules. But they are not in the Howard government's line of sight; they just pay all the tax and do the right thing while the mates of the Howard government get out of it all of the time. As I said at the outset, it is a government for the mates, by the mates and with the mates. This is a government that always puts its own political self-interest before the common interest. In question time day after day we have these rants and raves from various ministers on the government front bench who say things like `The Labor Party is a captive of minorities, it is a captive of the unions, it is a captive of political staffers, it is a captive of dole bludgers.' We are denigrated day in, day out. All of this is just a very elaborate camouflage for the fact that, when it comes to public policy in this country, this government is always giving the cream to its favourite minority—its wealthy mates. The reason it comes into this House with all of this camouflage is to cover-up what it is responsible for, which is massive benefits to a few of its mates.This is a government by mates and for mates. This is a government which only have one mission in life. Do you know what it is? Do you know what they say to themselves? `We have been put in this parliament to comfort the comfortable.' That is what they are here for—to serve the top table first—and that is what they do. The rest of the Australian people simply get the crumbs, because their mates have got the cream. Contrast this behaviour with what the government have been doing to average Australian citizens. You heard the Treasurer in here today saying what a terrific economy we have, how growth is so fantastic and what a great job they have done. How come the people who have to pay for it are people who are sick? Why are they putting up the basic cost of medicines? How come that is necessary if everything is so good? How come they have to fine the unemployed so much for minor misdemeanours? How come all of these things are so necessary? Why is all the sacrifice only borne by one group in the community? We know why: this government believe that the only people in the community who deserve incentives are their mates; that is, those on high incomes. The people on low incomes just get punishment; they do not have the same motivation and they are not wealthy. That is the point.These groups in the community are being king-hit day in, day out, year in, year out by the Howard government. All this comes together when you consider a prominent figure who no longer sits in this place. Who could it be but the `Prince of Darkness', Peter Reith. What has happened with Peter Reith says so much about this government and goes to the double standards of this government. Peter Reith is handcuffed to John Howard. Let us look at the PM's answer to a question that I asked in this House last week. I asked whether the Prime Minister would rule out appointing Mr Reith to a diplomatic appointment. Do you know what his answer was? It was this:To borrow a phrase used in another context, I have nothing to add to what I have previously said on the subject.That is, Peter Reith is heading for a diplomatic appointment. Peter Reith and John Howard are not simply mates; they are co-conspirators in some of this government's dirtiest deeds and deceptions. This is a relationship that should not be dignified by the term `mates' with all of the connotations of loyalty and manliness that that implies. This is more an unhealthy alliance of eunuchs in a Byzantine court—handcuffed together as they are! Peter Reith knew very early on that children were not thrown overboard and he had a talk to John Howard about that fact. Howard knew from the very early days. The point is very simply this: Reith has the goods on the Prime Minister—he has the PM's reputation. It is handcuffed to Peter Reith and he has the key to unlock it. That means that Peter Reith is going to get everything that he wants out of this government, and that brings us back to the DIDS contract—that $850 million contract that was awarded to the firm that he moved straight to immediately on leaving the parliament. How obscene, how rank and what an indication of just how appalling this government's standards of accountability are.Reith is not the sort of man that will let Howard get away with this without personal and substantial reward, and that will only be delivered at the taxpayers' expense. Of course, they are handcuffed on more than just what occurred in the `children overboard' affair; they are handcuffed on the MUA dispute. In some ways that is even more significant, because that was a conspiracy against the work force of this country. That is why Peter Reith gets anything he wants from this government. This is a conspiracy which goes to the heart of the ordinary Australian's security and it tells us so much about this government. The Prime Minister and Peter Reith are simply a couple of bottom-feeding sharks, and when the feed runs out, they have only one option: to eat each other. That is why Peter Reith was not repudiated when I asked the question about whether there would be further appointments of Peter Reith. He is handcuffed to the Prime Minister, and what Peter Reith wants, Peter Reith will get. That brings us back to all the other scandals and mates who have been favoured. It takes us back to ethanol and to all the appointments that were made. The list is so long we would be here all night if we were to go into detail. We have a government that claims to uphold standards of decency, but whose stock-in-trade is simply sleaze. The children overboard incident was one of those rare events in public life where the character of the participants is very clearly defined. We have a government that says it defends liberty and freedom of expression, but it suppresses the truth all the time. We have seen more of that in the Coonan and Rogers affair. We have a government that claims to be compassionate, but it brings bills into this parliament that cut the disability support pension by $52 a fortnight. Then, when we defend those people, the government brands them as malingerers and vilifies them.This is a cold-hearted government with not a shred of compassion. It has no agenda for good; its only agenda is to propagate fear. As you go through some of the outrageous statements that have been made on Iraq by the Prime Minister and the foreign minister on pre-emptive strikes, you see that there is no agenda but to propagate fear. The government is so vulnerable on domestic policy, it has to constantly be shifting the gaze away from the punishment it is delivering to average Australians. This government is full of doublespeak and it is led by a very disingenuous man. We saw a lot more of that in question time today. We can sum it up like this: this government has mortgaged the truth to pay for an election victory and we are still paying the price with more deception. What a pity the government could not put as much effort into looking after average Australians as it does into looking after itself. (Time expired)16:09:0010153Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Children and Youth Affairs10—I am delighted to be in the parliament to address the ramblings and absolute hypocrisy of the member for Lilley in raising this matter of public importance. This is the pot calling the kettle black, if ever I have known it. All this front, this indignation, this pious talk demonstrates that the ALP have no consistent policies of their own—we know that. We know they are a policy-free zone. The only attack they have is personal denigration and they play the man as opposed to playing the ball—or in this case the woman, Senator Helen Coonan. The demonstration today by the Manager of Opposition Business illustrates the enormous double standards—as he walks out—that the Australian Labor Party have had when looking after their mates, and I will go through those double standards.First of all, I will state the government's and the Prime Minister's position: the attack on the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer is vicious, personal and has no foundation. If it had any foundation, they would address this matter outside the parliament. But no, the member for Lilley is certainly not going to be addressing this outside the parliament because he knows that everything he is saying, and most of what has been said by the member for Werriwa, is libellous.This is their tactic. They play the individual because of their own inadequacies. The member for Lilley talks about a scare campaign. This is Darth Vader. This is the master of scare when it comes to families putting up smokescreens. Through his performance today, the member for Lilley is trying to demonstrate his leadership potential. When we talk about leadership potential, I recall the statement by the member for Werriwa when the dispute over the unfitness of the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hotham, was going on. I think the member for Werriwa said, `Well, they're big men; they get on the megaphone to the media, but they're cowards in the parliament. They're cowards in the party room because they're not going to bring on a challenge.' The only challenge that has been brought on today is to denigrate and run down the family of the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer and her husband, the eminent QC, Mr Rogers. A very specific statement was read out today stating that Senator Coonan has no pecuniary interest in the house at Pittwater or Clareville. Indeed, that statement is accurate, but the Labor Party are trying to besmirch this individual. They talk about a conspiracy to avoid tax and they take the high moral ground. Here they are: judge, jury and executioner. It is interesting to think about the mates that the Labor Party had when they were in government for 13 years and the high standards set by none other than the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating. Correct me if I am wrong, but in 1985 and 1986, he was Treasurer. I think he was the Treasurer for quite some time. In those years, was he collecting all the taxation? Of course he was, and he was jacking up the wholesale sales tax. It is interesting that, in those two years, the Treasurer of the nation failed to lodge a tax return. What type of example does that set for the Australian community? The double standards are phenomenal.Further, the member for Lilley is saying that our mates have their snouts in the trough. I tell you what: Keating, the former member for Blaxland, had a very big snout in a very big trough in his piggery investments. You have to ask the question: how can a small investment of $100,000 turn into $4 million? He must have had some very good mates. These mates continue to be around in other deals—friends of the Labor Party—like the Oasis development in Sydney, where there is a whole octopus of connections with tentacles reaching out to ALP ministers. But of course they are not doing deals for their mates. This is some type of corporate philanthropy!The fact is that their mates have benefited substantially. Again turning back the history books, in 1989 the Prime Minister of the day, Bob Hawke, did his special deal with the late Sir Peter Abeles. How was this protracted? It was because of exclusive arrangements where a number of people benefited enormously. And what about musicians and other people, like the former senator Graham Richardson? Here again, look at the high bar they are setting. There was an enormous high bar with the Marshall Islands affair. Can you remember that? He was using his influence with relatives. They must have had a conversion on the road to Damascus. There were others. What about the current opposition leader and his mates—his close relationship with Eddie Kornhauser, the Gold Coast property developer, a good friend of Bob Hawke and quite a central character in the Fitzgerald inquiry. There is even Brian Burke. Did he have any mates? He must have had a few, because he spent some time in the slammer on convictions of fraud. Of course, we forget about that. There is even the member for Fremantle, who has taken a backwards step. At least she had the courage of her convictions, unlike the member for Grayndler and others. The facts are demonstrated in this parliament. When you applaud a person for their actions, you would think you would follow through with them. But no. That is because they are so fragmented and in a policy vacuum. Look at the mates that the member for Fremantle had. Of course, all her ALP mates dumped on her.The fact is that it is this government that has been looking after the vast majority of mums and dads and families. As the PM says, it is a broad church that is inclusive and looks after everyone, rather than exclusive deals, the union movement and the Australian Labor Party. The biggest double standard that the Labor Party has is its special deal on Centenary House. This was a building that it bought not so long ago. Through a bit of persuasion—or duress; who knows?—the Labor Party asked the Australian National Audit Office, the regulator when it comes to proper appropriation of expenditure, to go into Centenary House. Remember those opposite are setting the high bars here. The member for Parkes—and the member for Cowper, who represents the people of Coffs Harbour—would know about this. Here are those opposite, setting these high principles. Yet in this example, in 1993, they cut this arrangement—a 15-year lease. At that time, leases in Canberra were normally five years; normally there would be an accelerated rental clause of around two to three per cent. No, not with the deal they cut. It was nine per cent. Their revenue rose from $439,000 in annual rent to over $5½ million today. They talk about setting examples, they talk about propriety and yet they rorted the system themselves. They are not just benefiting their mates; they are benefiting themselves—straight into the pocket. The member for Lilley continues to take the high ground here. That is enormous. He is playing individuals. He is not coming up with any type of firm policy commitment. When it comes to family tax benefits, when it comes to Australian families, it is interesting. Today Australian families are receiving more forms of social security when it comes to family tax payments, parenting payments and other forms of payments like baby bonuses. There is a whole range of payments that go out and that we have increased dramatically in the last couple of years. That is in recognition of the fact that we believe that Australian families, particularly in middle income Australia, should be rewarded through their efforts, not only through the family taxation benefits system but also through reductions in PAYE income tax. It has been a conservative government that has cut tax rates and also increased the rates of social security payments to those mums and dads and families and to those who are most vulnerable. It has not been the Australian Labor Party. Indeed, look at the legacy that they left behind for families. At one stage, interest rates were at 17 per cent on home mortgages; when they left office in 1996, they were 10½ per cent. If you had in 1996 a $100,000 mortgage at 10½ per cent, straightaway, off the top, you would be paying over $330 just to service that mortgage. If you had a mortgage back in the halcyon days of the recession we had to have, you would have to be paying around $1,000 more at 17 per cent to pay that mortgage. Is that fair on families? Is that going to be family friendly? That is not to mention the fact that in their last six years real wages dropped by five per cent. Wages went down by five per cent; interest rates went up. And they try to claim that they are looking after Australian families, with ultimately over one million Australians who were out of work. They do not have policies that are family friendly. Indeed, it is the Howard-Anderson government and the Howard-Fischer government before it that have been the ones engaging in work and family issues to ensure that we can lift up the load, particularly for those who cannot help themselves. It is like the AWT legislation that we were expecting the opposition to support. No, they are knocking it back. These are the double standards from the member for Lilley. He says one thing in here and one thing out there. He is the Darth Vader and the master of double standards and perceptions.The Leader of the House spoke about this today, and I must compliment him on his lucid analysis. He said that the Labor Party's policy is `A scandal a day keeps policy away' or `A scandal a day keeps challengers away'. One of the challengers was the member for Lilley—Swan by name but a bit of a goose by nature. He was trying to demonstrate his leadership potential. The member for Blaxland is back there, and I am sure he has a very good claim to be a future Leader of the Opposition. He probably has a bit more compassion, representing an area in Sydney.But again, it has been this government that has been family friendly. I am surprised at the continuing animosity of those opposite towards former members who have left this parliament, particularly Peter Reith. The reason they are after him, as the Prime Minister stated, is that he had the courage and the strength to tackle a section of the Australian economy which was absolutely rorted by elements of the trade union movement—the dockside. We have subsequently seen a substantial increase in productivity.The Labor Party continue to try to muddy the waters using smoke and mirrors because of their lack of policy focus—because they are self-destructing. We have seen that recently, with the member for Fremantle relegating herself to the back bench because the policies the Australian Labor Party is coming up with are more and more like the coalition's—like our policy on unauthorised border entries—because they know that is what the Australian public want and expect. The opposition talked about the ethanol issue. Isn't that extraordinary? Again, it makes you wonder whose personal bidding the Labor Party are doing. I must go back and look at their registry of interests and see where their donations are coming from and whether there are some from the petroleum industry. This is about vilifying a particular individual—who, I am led to believe, made contributions to both political parties—because he has been quite passionate about encouraging greater use of ethanol. And why shouldn't he be passionate about it? Ethanol is a wonderful way to go for our economy, particularly for the sugar industry. Sugar is a renewable resource. We can start to put some of this product into motor vehicles, just as it is happening in Brazil and in a number of states in the United States, where they use a much higher ethanol content. But no. No, this is a deliberate attempt to besmirch him. But they are a bit more guarded here because they know they are vulnerable even when they look at their own declarations.I could go on about the member for Lilley. It is probably a bit unfair, but he hardly has a clean record, if we talk about some of the deals that were done in previous elections with the Australian Democrats—the lunch bags that I often have my lunch out of. But we will not go down that track. However, if they are going to come into this parliament and preach to us about the virtues of standards, then they had better have a pretty good look at themselves and the hypocrisy and double standards that they have had for so long. Here is the absolute confirmation—the smiling reveals that they are thinking, `The minister is right. He is absolutely right, but we do not want to give too much away.' They do not want to give too much away because they know, and we know, that it is the Liberal-National Party government that is supporting families and promoting fairness and equity in this parliament and this country. We will defend those ministers who have no reason to be subjected to these effectively outrageous claims, particularly the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer. (Time expired)16:25:0010156Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—As the second speaker on this MPI, I would like to say that I was not smiling for the reason the Minister for Family and Community Services gave but because the minister has certainly dudded it today in his reply. I did not stand and demand a retraction from the minister when he incorrectly said, maybe foolishly, words to this effect—and you can stay to listen, Minister, instead of running out of this place; you have misrepresented me. Talking about Paul Keating, the minister said: `and the member who took over from him in Blaxland in the piggery'. I am not the Hatton in Brown and Hatton. I have never been associated with a piggery. We know the Brown involved was a former minister, but I was not involved. The minister has misrepresented me. I could have taken some of the minister's time by demanding a retraction, but I would rather have my full time now. There is no mateship equivalent here.Let us go to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. The Prime Minister today—such a tender plant during question time—was seeking the intervention of the Speaker because he thought the member for Fraser had intimated that there was some direct promotion by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and that they were protecting their mates. The Speaker said there was no problem with the MPI because it was global; it was about the government. However, any suggestion that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were protecting their mates, and they could not take it. After reminding the Prime Minister that he should in fact turn up at this MPI and he might find out a bit more about it, I was rightly warned by the Speaker. There is a long list of the Prime Minister's mates—or the government's mates, if we are taking the global view. The member for Lilley ran through the list. I actually thought he had pinched part of my list! But he left a couple out: Michael Kroger—BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr Adams—It's a long list! LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—It is a long list—Donald McDonald, Stan Howard of National Textiles fame, Mr Rupert Murdoch, Mr Kerry Packer and, of course, Mr Honan of the Manildra Group, the ethanol company with the 38 per cent equivalent support from the government. I should not say it is only the Prime Minister protecting his mate, Mr Honan from the Manildra Group; I should say it is the government. However, it is his decision as Prime Minister of this government that has protected the Manildra Group. Instead of the ethanol content cap being set at 10 per cent, it is 20 per cent and higher. Whatever the government's mates want, the government's mates get. He will stand by them day after day.There is also former Senator Parer. Two days ago we had an energy review. The minister for energy—the minister for coal mines—owned the biggest coal mine in Queensland. He is still at the job. They think he will make a reasonable consultant. Then there is Peter Reith. He is special; we will come to him later. There is Senator Coonan. We know she is in a bit of trouble. I just thought of another: I see blue jerseys and I think there is a white seat. Could it be John Elliott? Do we remember, over a number of years, John Elliott and the NCA? It is the National Crime Authority! Not that John actually ever had too many problems with the National Crime Authority; he just wanted it abolished because it was causing him a bit of difficulty. And his mates tried to help him out in that regard. They tried a whole range of things. If you look at the government's extended history, what do they believe in? They have a long tradition. They only started in 1906-07, as the Fusion Party, the first Liberals. But you can trace them back through the Victorian protectors, right back to 1800 to 1804 and a whole exclusive class which later gave rise to the squattocracy in Australia. This mob believed that if you controlled the rum trade you could control everything else. They did it. Some of their progeny are still in this parliament. The nature of that exclusive class has been extended—the belief that you should not only protect your mates, but that your mates should own the whole lot.That is the fundamental philosophical basis for the Liberal Party. We know the philosophical basis of the National Party is different: it is about capitalising your profits and socialising your losses. Maybe they believed that in 1804 as well, but it is the Liberal one that is the key. The Prime Minister, as head of the government, believes that all of these people should be protected. He believes that of a minister, lovingly named by the former member as the opposition's Toltoy—you belt him down, you knock him, he has got a space, you go down and he would just pop back up. To the Prime Minister now, the former Minister for Defence is the phantom menace in all the guises he ran through before he ran out of the joint. We know that he went only because of the telecard affair and what that caused him. We know he had a few other problems, but the member for Lilley was absolutely right. This bloke is not just handcuffed to the Prime Minister; he is shackled to the Prime Minister, hand and foot. This former Minister for Defence is holding this government to ransom—whatever he wants is what he will get. And why? Because he knows where all of the bodies are buried—the metaphorical ones as well as some of the real ones in the past. He knows that, with children overboard, he is the central figure. He is the one who received all of the photographs from the Navy. He is the one who decided that only some of those would go forward. He is the one who dissembled. He is the one who has protected this Prime Minister's hide. He wanted to be the next but, by force of circumstance, he had to pull out of the race that he ran hard for so long. We know his litany of mistakes, his errors, his distortions; we know what he was in relation to Dubai. But we also note this fundamental truth: he will get what he wants. This Prime Minister has supported him before. They will support him in the future exactly because of that.83VEmerson, Craig, MPDr Emerson—They call him `His Excellency'.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—With that interjection from my good colleague, we know there was a long list of people associated. In fact, if you go to australianpolitics.com and have a look at a list of all the ministerial resignations since 1901, you will find one senator from Western Australia during the Lyons government resigned because of conflict of interest. But, hey! Have a look at the Howard ministry! I apologise: I thought there were eight—there was, latterly, an eighth, Senator Heffernan, but that was an own goal so we will not count him. There were seven on the trot. It was a bit hard to remember but, in October 1996, Senator Jim Short and parliamentary secretary, Brian Gibson, had a bit of a problem with bank shares and a conflict of interest. They went because of that. Senator Bob Woods did himself in for `alleged improprieties relating to expenses claims'. There were two relatively innocent victims: Geoff Prosser, the member for Forrest, and David Jull, from Queensland. They should have been brought back. They were more sinned against than sinning in regard to what the Prime Minister did to them. Then there was John Sharp and Peter McGauran—enough said about those. This Prime Minister, when he was a treasurer—we remember that, don't we?—was the one Treasurer in the history of the Commonwealth who actually achieved the trifecta. This is a complete impossibility for anyone else. He had double digit inflation, double digit unemployment and double digit interest rates. Paul Keating did not come near him. No other Treasurer has come close. If things are going bad in the economy, you might get one, you might get two, but the three—that goes to only John Howard. We know, of course, what he said about what the deficit was going to be just before the election. Interestingly, this is also a prime minister, who, in opposition, was a consultant to Clayton Utz. Senator Coonan's husband is a consultant to Clayton Utz. I just wondered at question time whether or not there had been any advice given by the Prime Minister in relation to these sorts of matters because he actually knew this stuff intimately. Probably he had not come across it so well when he was a suburban solicitor prior to 1974. Maybe he had had some association with it. But let's come to the difficulties in the tax area. Let's come to the Prime Minister who, from 1978, after Phil Lynch died, to March 1983, was Treasurer of the Commonwealth. We know there was the fiscal dollar stuff, dollars under the bed and that sort of thing early in 1978, but what was the other big thing? He had a few reviews done. He was really angry that Paul Keating picked it up and he could not do it—he could not get anything through cabinet—but there were four words: bottom of the harbour.Opposition members interjecting—Bottom of the harbour.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Where all the scuttlers are, where all the lobsters and where all the other garbage collectors are. That former government and the Treasurer, as he was then, took no action. He was, as he is today, deaf to all entreaty in regard to any of this. He was blind and deaf to anything that happened in relation to the bottom of the harbour. It was a scandal of the highest order. Mates were being protected then by the Fraser government, with him as Treasurer. Mates are being protected whilst he is Prime Minister of this government—big mates and little mates. In the 1970s, the little mates were given the job of bringing 14,000 people from overseas with no border controls, no checking and no ASIO checks, and the streets of Sydney have been dangerous because of those minorities ever since. This government deserves to be condemned. (Time expired)16:35:0010158Dutton, Peter, MPMr DUTTON00AKIDicksonLP10—I took great delight in being afforded the opportunity to speak this afternoon on this motion. Having heard the member for Blaxland speak before me, his recall of history really beggars description. If we go back and have a look at ministers within the Liberal Party or within the coalition, and we go right back to Robert Menzies who, for argument's sake, at the time he left office, was not able to afford the general necessities of life. If you look at people like Hawke and Keating, Keating in particular—if we are talking about mateship, and we saw the member for Werriwa, who was a great admirer of the achievements of the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, here before—left this place—7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—A multimillionaire. 00AKIDutton, Peter, MPMr DUTTON—a multimillionaire, having come into the place as a basic pauper. You have to ask yourself the question: what level of hypocrisy still exists in the Labor Party today that they criticise this government for some sort of fictitious mateship deals that they have conjured up when you reflect upon the Hawke and Keating years in particular? It really is a disgrace to see this motion before this House today.The member for Blaxland also raised the issue that, if you look back over the period of history, the majority of people in the ministry who have had a conflict of interest have come from our side of the parliament. We hear all sorts of lies and fictitious bits and pieces, and I do not know whether that is true or not. If I were to take that on face value, the assets and the contributions that people in this place bring to the ministry would have to be taken into consideration. If, for argument's sake, you compare the makeup of the Howard government—and, in particular, its ministry—at the moment with the frontbenchers or, indeed, the backbenchers who sit opposite, you will see that we have accomplished solicitors, barristers, doctors and people of all sorts of professions and backgrounds. Compare that with this bunch of hacks who sit opposite. They are relics of the union movement from years gone past. If we look to the other place, we see senators who have been rewarded for their years of hackdom associated with the union movement. They have been rewarded with senatorial positions because they have cut off toes and whatnot in preselections in New South Wales and Victoria.No wonder those opposite have been involved in so little conflict of interest—they do not come from any small business background, they do not come from any professional background and they have no ability to contribute. Is it any wonder that they find themselves on that side of the chamber for another term? Mr Deputy Speaker, I can assure you that, if you go out and speak with the Australian public, you will discover that the view of the majority of Australian people is that the opposition will be on that side for a long time to come. Those opposite are of no relevance to the Australian people. As I have said, they have a clear connection with the union movement. They are about protecting their mates in the union movement. With this little clique on the frontbench opposite we are seeing the `third way' in operation. The left will eventually catch up with people like Simon Crean, Bob Carr, Steve Bracks and, in particular—my favourite—Peter Beattie. They run this centre-of-the-road philosophy, if not moving a little to the right, and really in time it will catch up with them. If they are going to talk about mates and rewarding those who have sponsored them to come into this place, we should draw our attention first to the union movement.The Labor Party has always said that it cares about middle Australia but, frankly, it has never delivered on any promises. As I have said, the Australian Labor Party has no relationship with Australian families or middle Australia. It never has had and it never will, because its parliamentary representation is dominated by union and factional heavyweights. You know that to be the case. They are a party of few morals and few policies; and they have even less of an idea about the Australian families we are talking about here today. However, this government has ensured that Australian families are well looked after and receive the assistance that they need. The member for Lilley obviously has a very short memory. He has not only forgotten how bad things were under the Hawke and Keating years but also not noticed, apparently, the assistance given to Australian families under the Howard government.00AN0Ciobo, Steven, MPMr Ciobo—Remember the statement that no child would live in poverty?00AKIDutton, Peter, MPMr DUTTON—That is very true. My good friend the member for Moncrieff has reminded me of the statement that was made that no child would live in poverty by 1990. That was never delivered on; it was another failed promise. Let us turn our minds to the issue of financial management. The Australian people do not have a short memory in terms of the issue of financial management. Those of us who were in small business or owned homes and had a mortgage during the Keating years can well remember interest rates hitting 17 per cent or 18 per cent. If you were in a small business, the interest rate on your overdraft—generally secured by a mortgage against your business premises or your own home—reached around 20 per cent. Those on the other side have no idea what we are talking about. They miss the point because they have no experience in small business and no relationship with the Australian people or the benefits that this government has produced through financial management—in particular, the fact that interest rates are now at about 6½ per cent. The usual modus operandi of the ALP is they get into government, they spend too much and they make promises to minority groups. But they do not deliver to families; they make families suffer. They leave government and leave us with a debt at the end—just like the debt of $96 billion they left us only six years ago. That was a debt costing the families of Australia just under $5 billion a year in interest. That is money that, these days, under the Howard government, goes towards schools, education, health and essential services that we are able to deliver to the families of Australia.I am proud to be part of a government that has repaid over $60 billion of that debt and now saves those families all that wasted money. That is money which, under this government, has been spent wisely. I say again, that when it comes to financial management, the ALP have no idea at all. The Australian public are not dumb; they can see right through the financial management failures of successive Labor governments. We are now seeing that; and we will certainly see it in the state of Queensland in the not too distant future. It also seems that the member for Lilley has not noticed that this government's solid economic credentials are making life easier for all Australians. Not only do we have the lower interest rates that I spoke about before but we have improved home affordability and the first home buyer's grant. These are not policies of mateship; these are policies of delivering real, practical outcomes to the Australian people. The low interest rates we are seeing today will save a family in the seat of Dickson with a mortgage of $140,000 some $461 a month compared to when Labor was in office. If you are talking about providing benefits to the Australian people then $461 tax free a month is significant. In particular, it is significant to those people with young families. Let us turn our attention to the next issue: unemployment. Another Labor legacy when we came into government was unemployment. It peaked at about 10.9 per cent in 1992. It is now at six per cent but on the way down. This is a government that has delivered in excess of one million jobs in six years. If we are talking about mateship and delivering to those people who matter most in Australian society, then it is this government that has delivered one million jobs—real outcomes for the people of Australia. Great news stories continue for the coalition government in education, child care and health. In the electorate of Dickson, there are 89 registered Commonwealth child-care services. On top of this, the federal government spends about $1.7 billion to offset the cost of child-care fees, which means that the parents of young families can return to work to provide an outcome for their families. (Time expired)10000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! The discussion is now concluded.Bills10160The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Medical Indemnity Bill 2002Medical Indemnity (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002Medical Indemnity (Enhanced UMP Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002Medical Indemnity (IBNR Indemnity) Contribution Bill 2002Bills10160R169210160Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented.Ordered that this bill be considered forthwith. Bill agreed to.10161Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) (4.46 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Committees10161101611016116:47:0010161Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I present the report of the committee entitled Examination of the annual report for 2000-2001 of the National Crime Authority, together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—by leave—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I have presented the report of the committee on the authority's annual report for 2000-01. The committee has a legislative responsibility under section 55(1)(c) of the National Crime Authority Act 1984. This requires the committee to examine each annual report of the authority and report to the parliament on any matter appearing in or arising out of any such report. During its deliberations, the committee held a public hearing in Canberra on 24 June 2002.Honourable members will be aware that the committee also recently completed its report on the Australian Crime Commission Establishment Bill 2002. The legislation, which is due to commence on 1 January 2003, replaces the National Crime Authority with the Australian Crime Commission. The material contained in the 2000-01 annual report, together with the evidence obtained at the committee hearing on that report, was of considerable assistance in the committee's review of the proposed legislation. However, the NCA's 2000-01 annual report gave the committee some concerns about the authority's accountabilities in a number of areas. In particular, the lack of specificity in finance and performance standards left the committee with a sense that it had little material on which to assess whether or not the authority had successfully fulfilled its objectives.The committee acknowledges that such measures are difficult to define but expresses concern about the period of time the authority has been addressing it, with little result. The committee considers that there are clearly efficiency issues which require resolution. The financial statements reinforce this, as they indicate a relatively small organisation which is `top heavy' when compared with other agencies in the public sector. There has been no reason advanced for this by the authority.The committee notes that the authority has addressed the various reporting requirements in its annual report 2000-01, and the committee is confident that the changes that will occur as a result of the commencement of the Australian Crime Commission Act on 1 January 2003 will address the significant issues which have emerged during the examination of the NCA 2000-01 annual report. The committee also looks forward to continuing its oversight role with the new organisation.101611016110000Hawker, David (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—The Speaker has received advice from the Chief Opposition Whip that she has nominated Mr Cox to be a member of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration in place of Mr Latham.Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) (4.50 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That Mr Latham be discharged from the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration and that, in his place, Mr Cox be appointed a member of the committee.Question agreed to.101621016216:51:0010162Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I 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 fit-out of new leased premises for the Bureau of Meteorology at Docklands, Melbourne.The Bureau of Meteorology proposes to fit out new leased premises at 700 Collins Street, Docklands, in Melbourne, Victoria. The head office of the Bureau of Meteorology has been accommodated in its current premises at 150 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne since 1974 and its Victoria regional office was collocated to the same building in 1986.The existing premises of the bureau have a limited capacity to cope with the future demands of an organisation which operates one of the largest supercomputer complexes in Australia. In addition, the current lease expires at the end of March 2004, with no option to renew. Since the bureau is required to complete a move to new accommodation by 1 April 2004, it has entered into a precommitment lease with the private sector developer of the 700 Collins Street building, which is purpose designed for the bureau as the major tenant and is currently under construction.The proposed fitout will configure the interior of the new building to match the operational needs of the organisation. It will create a general office environment to contemporary standards, supported by special purpose facilities, advanced information technology installation and appropriate security. The building and fitout will also conform to high standards of energy efficiency and minimal environmental impact. The total space to be fitted out is 16,900 square metres. The completed workspace will offer accommodation for more than 800 staff, meteorological trainees, visiting scientists and specialist consultants.This proposal covers the fitout of the new leased premises for the Bureau of Meteorology encompassing: a general office fitout, a central computing facility and supporting infrastructure, communications and computing infrastructure to allow the bureau to fulfil the obligations of Australia under the Convention of the World Meteorological Organization with regard to the designation of Melbourne as a World Meteorological Centre and a hub for regional telecommunications, operational facilities for the provision of meteorological and hydrological services, meteorological equipment standards and maintenance areas, the National Meteorological Library, the Bureau of Meteorology Training Centre, the Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre, and corporate car parking.The estimated cost of the fitout works is approximately $19.22 million, which will be funded out of the Bureau of Meteorology budget appropriation. Subject to parliamentary approval, the target date for commencement of the integrated fitout works is August 2003. I commend the motion to the House.Question agreed to.1016216:55:0010162Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I 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.The Defence Housing Authority proposes the progressive development of off-base housing to provide 72 new residences at Adamstown, New South Wales. The role of the Defence Housing Authority is to provide suitable housing to meet the operational needs of the Australian Defence Force and the requirements of the Department of Defence.The Defence Housing Authority satisfies Defence accommodation requirements by a mixture of: construction off base with a view to retaining the properties or selling them with a lease attached; construction on base to accord with Defence operational or policy requirements and/or if such construction is the most cost effective for all concerned; direct purchase with a view to retaining the properties or selling them with a lease attached; and direct lease from the private rental market. All these methods are utilised in locations such as Newcastle. However, owned assets are in relatively short supply and constructed housing delivered through bulk procurement contracts is the most effective provisioning option readily geared to Defence requirements. Building in a desirable location such as Adamstown also maximises the potential return to the Commonwealth. This proposal will involve developing a former Army Reserve site at Adamstown located some six kilometres south-west of the Newcastle central business district. The vacant site occupies an area of approximately 5.25 hectares. It is proposed to construct 72 individual residences comprising 60 four-bedroom detached dwellings and 12 three-bedroom townhouses. The new residences will be fully compliant with current Defence and community standards.The proposed project will have a positive effect on the local economy during the construction period, both through persons working directly on the site and through the many more persons working off site supplying material, plant and equipment. In the Newcastle market, construction of 72 additional dwellings to partly meet the Defence housing requirements is not expected to affect either the sale or rental markets for residential accommodation.The estimated cost of the proposal is $21.6 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, competitive tenders will be called for construction to commence in June next year. The development will proceed in two stages, with delivery of all completed houses expected by September 2004. I commend the motion to the HouseQuestion agreed to. Bills10163R172910163Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1016316:58:0010163Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.It is with great pleasure that I introduce Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2002-03.Appropriation Bill (No. 3) together with Appropriation Bill (No. 4), which I shall introduce shortly, comprise the additional estimates bills for 2002-03.The bills ask the parliament to appropriate moneys to meet essential and unavoidable expenditures from the consolidated revenue fund. These moneys are additional to the appropriations made in the last budget for 2002-03 in appropriation acts Nos 1 and 2.The bulk of this additional money is required to meet routine changes in the estimates of program expenditure arising from forecast increases in costs and changes in the timing of payments. The bills also request agreement to expenditure in 2002-03 on new activities, the greater number of which were incorporated by the government in its Midyear economic and fiscal outlook document last month.The additional appropriations in these two bills total some $1,454.7 million—$1,191 million is sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and $263.8 million in Appropriation Bill (No. 4).These amounts are partly offset by savings that are expected against Appropriation Acts (Nos. 1 and 2).The savings, amounting to some $167.4 million in gross terms, are detailed in the document entitled Statement of savings expected in annual appropriations.After allowing for prospective savings the provisions represent a net increase of $1,287.3 million in appropriations in 2002-03, or some 2.5 per cent of total annual appropriations.It should be noted that the additional amounts included in the bills relate only to expenses financed by annual appropriations, which comprise some 30 per cent of total general government expenses and capital appropriations. I now turn to the main areas for which the government seeks additional provisions in Appropriation Bill (No. 3). This bill provides authority for meeting payments for expenses on the ordinary annual services of government. Details of the proposed appropriations are set out in the schedule to the bill.The bill provides:. $178.6 million in funding towards the package of additional drought measures announced on Monday ($193.2 million in gross terms);. a total of $17.2 million in support for people on drought affected farms in the Bourke, Brewarrina, Grafton-Kempsey, Western Division, Walgett-Coonamble and northern New England regions of New South Wales and the Peak Downs region of Queensland;. $36.5 million for sugar industry reform measures, including income support, interest rate subsidies and assistance in diversification to other agricultural commodities;. a $5 million donation to the Farmhand drought appeal;. $4.6 million in additional funding for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation;. $19.2 million in support for victims of the Bali disaster and their families;. $80.4 million in indexation adjustments for Defence;. $44.3 million for expected continued growth in New Apprenticeships;. $350 million for rephasing from 2001-02 to 2002-03 Australia's contribution to the 13th replenishment of the International Development Association and Australia's commitment to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative;. $5.9 million in additional funding for the administration of electoral and ministerial offices; and. $5.2 million in additional funding to enhance the budget advisory capacity in the Department of Finance and Administration.The remaining amount included in Appropriation Bill (No. 3) is made up of estimates variations for departments and agencies, and other measures.I table the Statement of savings expected in annual appropriations and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills10164R172410164Message from the Governor-General transmitting particulars of proposed expenditure and recommending appropriation announced.Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.1016417:04:0010164Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That this bill be now read a second time.Appropriation Bill (No. 4) provides additional funding for agencies for:. expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution and for payments to the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory; and. non-operating purposes such as equity injections and loans.Appropriations totalling $263.8 million are sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2002-2003. This is in addition to the appropriations made in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 2002-2003 in the last budget.The principal factors contributing to the increase are:. $69.4 million in additional payments to the states and territories, including:- $15 million as a result of the supplementation offer made to the states and territories as part of the third Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement;- $5.5 million in support of the National Aerial Firefighting Strategy; and- $30 million for the First Home Owners Scheme. . $12.7 million will be put towards ensuring that staff entitlement and other obligations are met in the wind-up of Employment National;. $10.2 million to enhance physical security at Australia's overseas posts;. $7 million to enhance the travel documents screening system; and. $5.1 million to enhance the budget information systems.The balance of the amount included in Appropriation Bill (No. 4) is made up of capital adjustments and other estimates variations.I also commend this bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Griffin) adjourned.Bills10165R147810165Debate resumed.17:07:0010165Hartsuyker, Luke, MPMr HARTSUYKER00AMMCowperNP10—I rise today to discuss the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002. It is a bill that is of great importance to our economy when we consider the employment opportunities that would be potentially available to the unemployed, the potential for small business to create jobs and the continued prosperity of our nation. If we are to create an environment which encourages Australian businesses to employ more people, then it is essential that we address some of the major impediments which discourage our business men and women from hiring more staff. Many in the business community believe the single biggest issue holding businesses back from employing more staff is the unfair dismissal law. There are genuine concerns that the financial cost associated with hiring additional staff is simply not worth the risk when all the legislation tends to side with the employee.This is clearly understandable when you hear of employees who have been stealing from a business and then winning an unfair dismissal payout when their employment is terminated. Similarly, there are those in the community who fail to fulfil the duties and responsibilities required of them and then manipulate the unfair dismissal laws to extract as much money as they can from their employer. Inevitably, this has taken its toll, to the point where the opportunities for businesses to employ more people and expand have been sacrificed due to the unfair, employee-focused legal environment which prevails. It is therefore essential that some balance be put back into the framework under which employers and employees coexist.I know there are many unemployed people who are waiting for the opportunity to gain some form of work, whether it be seasonal or full time, but who are not being presented with the opportunity because of employers' fear of hiring staff. This fair termination legislation will go some way to breaking down some of those barriers and give business the confidence to go out and employ more people. For example, there are certain employees that will no longer fall under the unfair dismissal legislation. Employees engaged for a specific time, employees engaged for a specific task, employees who are on probation, casual employees and those engaged for a short period, trainees employed under certain agreements and non-award employees who earn more than a particular rate established in the workplace relations legislation will no longer operate within the termination of employment provisions detailed in the Workplace Relations Act.While some of my parliamentary colleagues on the opposition benches seem to believe that this will impact on the rights of some employees, let me lay to rest some of the fallacies which follow such an argument. The most naive interpretation which opponents of the legislation have is that these amendments will somehow provide an incentive to small business to get rid of staff on an unfair basis. As someone who has been involved in small business for many years and liaises very closely with the small business sector, I can tell you that, within any enterprise, the greatest resource is the people who are employed there. If any small business is unfairly dismissing people, they are reducing their skills base, diminishing their expertise, destroying their product knowledge and getting rid of their people with customer relations knowledge. It is absolutely vital that a business retains its staff resources, and to be dismissing staff in an unfair way is not good business, as well as a ridiculous proposition. In both a practical and economic sense, there seems to be no logical reason for a small business to act improperly and unfairly dismiss staff. Since the coalition government was elected in 1996, we have been committed to reforming the unfair dismissal laws. To date, we have introduced more flexibility into the workplace. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development acknowledged this in its assessment of the economic successes which Australia has enjoyed in recent years. I would like to quote from the OECD report, which says:The process so far of reforming Australia's complex industrial relations system has had profound effects on many industries. It has been an important factor in reducing labour inefficiencies and increasing flexibility of work conditions. By enhancing the incentives for more efficient work and management, it has helped firms to move closer to best practice.What the OECD is saying is that the changes the coalition has implemented have seen wages increase in real terms, profits rise, the number of people employed increase, the number of those unemployed drop significantly and our nation's overall productivity grow. This is because the legal restrictions which burdened businesses during the Hawke-Keating regime have been replaced with a more commonsense approach which has involved workers and managers getting on with the job together.But, while Australians are reaping the benefits of these changes, there still remain legal restrictions which are prohibitive to business, in particular small business. I was interested to read recently of a research paper by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne. The research indicated the huge financial cost of our unfair dismissal laws to small and medium sized businesses. Not only is there a very great financial cost but there is also a significant impact on jobs. I know that creating jobs has never been a priority of the Labor Party. Indeed, in 1992, when interest rates were crippling small businesses right across the nation, the Labor Party's policies saw unemployment reach 10.9 per cent. Six years and one million new jobs later, the coalition has been able to reduce that rate to six per cent. We are not happy with six per cent because we know that with the right approach unemployment can be reduced even further. And, if the Labor Party were serious about helping more Australians get into the labour market, then they would support any legislation which removed the impediments to employing more people. But, no, the Labor Party continue to baulk at any opportunity to free up the job market and provide tens of thousands of people with employment.It is an absolute misnomer to suggest the Labor Party are the champion of the worker. What is more accurate is that they and their union mates are committed to tying up the industrial relations laws of this nation so that businesses are hamstrung. They have no regard for the long hours and financial risk which the average small business person has to contend with and even less regard for those Australians who want to work but are not getting the opportunity to do so because of the archaic, regressive and prohibitive unfair dismissal laws. If our colleagues on the opposition benches are truly concerned about acting in Australia's best interests, then I ask them to consider the real cost of our unfair dismissal environment. The Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research put a very heavy dollar figure on it. They are also saying there are a huge number of people who are not getting a job because of these laws. They state in their research that some 77,000 people are missing out on a job because of the current regime. Sixty thousand of these jobs are specifically not occurring in small business. Why? Because small business knows it is simply not worth the cost and the heartache to hire people who can then effectively hold them to ransom through unfair dismissal legislation.I wish the Labor Party would take the time to go and speak to small business people, to the couple that are working 70 hours a week, to the plumber who has so much work on the go but who cannot risk employing someone who may try to use unfair dismissal laws against him to arrive at a financial settlement, and to those who remain unemployed because of the lack of incentive for businesses to hire extra staff. The real pain in this situation is being felt by those who are unemployed, by those who are being denied the opportunity to work because of the need for the change that is in this legislation. As the Melbourne Institute highlighted in their report, the sad reality is that the unfair dismissal laws are affecting those in the most vulnerable positions: the young, who are trying to secure employment; the long-term unemployed; and those with lower levels of education. These are the very people we should be making every effort to get into employment. Their employment not only gets them active in the workplace but also increases their skills base, improves their self-esteem and contributes to the productivity of our economy. A fair, balanced approach to dismissal law is a win-win for everyone. The extra staff eases the burden on the small business proprietors, the unemployed person starts earning a wage and the overall dependence on the taxpayer dollar is reduced. It is not rocket science; it is simple commonsense. If the Labor Party were fair dinkum about helping the unemployed and about helping small businesses, particularly in regional Australia, it would support these measures before the House. Since 1996, the coalition has attempted some 22 times to pass into law a small business exemption in order to stimulate the employment market, and each time the ALP has voted against these laws. The opposition has had the opportunity 22 times to create tens of thousands of jobs but has ignored the plight of the unemployed, the demands of small business and the demands of the community. Essentially, the opposition is saying it will always put the interests of unions before the interests of workers.I have noted in the House before that it has been a coalition promise to reform the unfair dismissal legislation. Unfair dismissal legislation is an issue I am very passionate about. I am also very passionate about creating jobs in my electorate and in the nation generally. We in the National Party are very focused on regional Australia and on small business. Regional Australia has a far greater dependency on small business than the cities do. We do not have a great number of large employers to provide employment opportunities, so a large proportion of our labour force is employed in small business. We must remember the importance of agriculture and the employment it generates in regional areas. Hopefully, when the rains come and seasonal conditions improve, this legislation will go a long way to creating additional employment in the field of agriculture. It will be farmers, and in particular horticulturalists and those growing crops, who will be able to employ people during their busy harvest seasons. The harvest season by nature demands the employment of large numbers of people for short periods of time.Whilst the Workplace Relations Act 1996 sought to protect employers such as farmers, last November the Federal Court found that the regulation excluding short-term casual employees from making dismissal applications was invalid. The court ruled that the regulations excluding short-term casual employees should not be allowed on the technical ground that they went further than allowed by the regulation-making power of the act. The exclusion of short-term casual employees from the termination of employment remedies is not new. It dates back to 1994 when the Labor Party was in government. For seven years business people, including many farmers, have organised their employment of short-term casuals based on the fact that, when the task for which the casual had been employed is completed, the termination of that employment should not be considered unfair.Following the Federal Court's decision, the coalition government introduced an interim measure to protect businesses and to allow them to continue to hire staff on a casual basis for a short time. However, in order to provide long-term security for business people and for those in short-term casual positions, changes to the act are necessary. That is precisely what this bill achieves. It is why the National Farmers Federation have identified the need to protect their members so they can go about their business and employ more people on a short-term casual basis. The National Farmers Federation is very clear on this point. It is a very important piece of legislation for the House and I commend it to the House. It will create more employment, provide opportunities for the long-term unemployed and create more productivity in the economy. I am very focused on the need for this bill to be passed and I commend it to the House. 17:19:0010168Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I rise to make a short contribution on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002, as I have done on many of this government's workplace bills in the course of the last six or so years. I reiterate that my overarching motivation in this often confusing area is to see the creation of workplace legislation that is fair to all and that balances the rights of employees and employers alike. This is always difficult in Australian politics, as workplace law is both the traditional and the sole remaining point of differentiation between the two major parties in this country as everyone rushes to get tough on everything they can. It looks as though the government and the opposition have decided to get tough on casual workers. I have supported the government on its fair dismissal legislation on the basis of the protection it offers to small businesses of fewer than 20 employees. I am of the belief that, for small businesses in Calare, the unfair dismissal regime is a disincentive to the creation of employment. This exemption from access to unfair dismissal laws for employees of small business includes regular casual employees—that is, those who work on a regular but casual basis for a period of 12 months.However, in relation to this bill, I find it impossible to support proposed legislation that will deny any employees, especially casual workers employed on a short-term basis, the protection of the unlawful dismissal provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Section 170CK of that act protects employees from unlawful dismissal on grounds of absence due to illness or injury, union membership or non-membership, race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin or for absences due to maternity or other parental leave. Excluding any type of employee from part 6A, division 3, subdivision C will mean that they are not protected in workplace law from dismissal on such discriminatory grounds, as far as I can see from my reading of this bill.I was extremely surprised that the ALP's proposed amendments to this bill do not retain this protection under subdivision C of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for casual employees, regardless of how long they have been employed, until I found that the ALP's own industrial relations regulation No. 79 of 1994 provided for exactly the same thing—excluding this safety net for casuals. Dismissal because of discrimination should not be tolerated under any circumstances for any employee, whether they have been employed for one minute let alone for six months or one year. It is entirely unacceptable. I do understand that there are other avenues through which such discrimination might be pursued, such as HREOC and the state antidiscrimination boards, but to allow protection from unlawful dismissal to one type of employee over another is industrial discrimination in itself. If it occurs in the workplace, it is a matter for workplace law. I will be moving amendments in the consideration in detail stage to retain this basic protection for all employees, casual and permanent alike, and to amend the period of exclusion for casual employees. I trust those amendments are being circulated for consideration by the government and the opposition.This omission by government and opposition aside, I initially supported the ALP's option to reduce the exclusion period from the unfair dismissal regime to six months for regular casual employees. However, the member for Barton eloquently illustrated the increasing casualisation of the Australian work force and its increasing marginalisation and vulnerability. It supports every concern I have had about the increasingly unequal opportunities in our society. To enable them to keep in touch, casual workers should receive equal access to the federal unfair dismissal regime as workers employed on an ongoing basis. About an hour or so ago, I had a group of kids from Lithgow—year 6 students, and very bright and intelligent youngsters they were—and I did a straw poll of just how many of their parents or guardians were employed part time and casually and whether, as far as they knew, their parents wished that they had full-time employment. Fifteen of those 30 kids put their hands up and said, `Yes, my dad or mum can only find casual and part-time work.' That supports the sort of data we have heard about in this debate. It shows the increasing acceleration of the part-time and casualised work force in this country.The Bills Digest refers to ABS data showing a 117 per cent increase in the casual work force from 1984 to 1999. This is incredible growth compared with permanent employment for the same period that grew by only 19 per cent. No wonder the employment figures are so good, especially seeing that you have to work only one hour a week to be considered employed—some economic miracle, as boasted by that guru of economic rationalism, John Hyde, in yesterday's Australian. It all depends on how you measure it. All these figures point to the fact that this country has a major social inequity problem: it is called underemployment.At August 2000, the ABS pointed to a casual work force of 27 per cent, and last night the member for Barton stated that this is now more like a third. I agree with the honourable member that, even in recognising that some of these will be second jobs—by necessity to pay debt, I might add—it is an extremely high number of people. Where is the miracle economy for them? Over the last decade, as the member said, 87 per cent of new jobs paid less than $26,000 per year and half of that number earned less than $15,600. I agree with the member for Barton's assertion that this is well below the minimum wage and suggests that the vast majority of these new jobs are casual or part time. What we have is a large and growing underemployed group of workers all plumping the economic indications because they work over one hour a week but yet are increasingly marginalised due to their casual employment status. They have no sick or holiday leave benefits, little super and little security, as they will have no access to the property market as no-one gives a home loan to a casual employee.I believe casual workers are not nearly compensated enough, even with casual loading. They should in the least be afforded the same opportunity for protection against unfair and unlawful dismissal as their full-time and part-time ongoing counterparts. A full-time or permanent part-time employee in a staff of over 20 under a federal award can claim unfair dismissal if they are sacked at any time after the completion of their three-month probationary period. A casual employee who might, for example, work the same number of hours per week as a worker employed on an ongoing basis does not have the same opportunity. Perhaps we should be looking at legislation that determines any worker that is employed on a regular casual basis for more than six months will be deemed to be a full-time or part-time employee on an ongoing basis—but that will be for another debate.We create the potential for further unrest and discontent in the workplace when we try to determine standards of fairness and decency between employees and their employers and then decide that these standards are not universal to all employment relationships. It is one thing to talk about the wish for people re-entering the work force and how handy it is to have casual and part-time work—it creates all this flexibility and that is just what people want—but a hell of a lot of the people going back into the work force on that basis are second income earners in fairly well-off circumstances. I am talking about that large number of people in the work force whose only work is a sketchy portfolio of casual work that they try to stitch together to support the fabric of their family, pay their mortgage and their plastic card which is used on an increasing basis to buy the basics such as groceries. We all know what the per head credit debt is in this country, and that is an issue of real concern. It is a time bomb that is ticking away. It is causing social distress and unrest in families. It is an absolute nonsense to say that the casual work force is a happy and contented lot and isn't it great, isn't it flexible? This bill does not do the same deal that standards are universal with its exclusion of casual employees with less than 12 months service from access not only to unfair dismissal protection but also to protection against unlawful dismissal. That contravenes all notions on human rights and equal opportunity in this country. So, while consistently supporting the position of small business in the fair dismissal legislation that has been such a point of contention in this and previous parliaments, I come down strongly in support of employees in this bill. I commend my amendments to the House. I believe the opposition amendments do not go far enough and, as it stands, I cannot support the bill.17:30:0010170Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank all the members who have contributed to this debate. It has generally been a good quality debate, and I have listened to some interesting speeches. Essentially, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 is a very simple and straightforward piece of legislation. It is designed to overcome the difficulties that arose out of the Hamzy case, where the Federal Court found that regulations excluding short-term casuals from the ambit of the unfair dismissal laws were invalid. In the Hamzy case, the court found that 12 months was too long for casual employees to legitimately be regarded as short term. This bill simply restores the status quo ante—the status quo which had existed from 1996 until that particular case. It puts into legislation what was previously in regulations which were not disallowed by the parliament.The member for Calare, as he so often does, has made an interesting contribution. I thank the member for Calare for his comments today, although I am about to disagree with them. I thank him for his general position that the unfair dismissal laws need to be reformed. Let me assure the member for Calare that the government are not ganging up on casuals. We are not trying to get tough on casuals; we are simply trying to restore the status quo ante. I can appreciate the member for Calare's concern to see casual employees protected from unlawful dismissal. I understand that there may be something in another place on this subject as well. Should it come forward in another place, I will happily consider it, but I do not think now is the time to deal with this matter. I simply point out to the member for Calare that the unlawful dismissal exclusion has existed for as long as unfair dismissal laws have operated in this place and was part of the position put into place by the former Keating government. The member for Barton made, as he always does, a thoughtful and carefully researched contribution. I thank him, as I often have. The member for Barton has that great lawyer's quality of appearing to believe in his brief even if he does not. I suspect that he may not believe in what he had to say quite as much as he appeared to.I want to make the general point that there is nothing wrong with casual employment. According to last year's ABS survey, some 22.8 per cent of all Australian employees consider themselves to be casual. I make the point that they are not exploited, they are not unhappy and they are not, generally speaking, insecure. Casual workers usually receive a very significant loading in their hourly rates of pay to compensate for being casual workers. I know many casual workers, as do other members of this House, and the vast majority of them choose to be casual workers because they like the higher loading and the freedom that casual employment provides. The Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey of 1995 found that casual employees were more likely to be satisfied with their jobs than permanent employees. The Job Futures-Saulwick Employment Sentiment Survey of September 2002 found that about 80 per cent of casual employees feel either quite secure or very secure in their jobs. So I reject the member for Barton's comments and propositions about casual employment.I also reject the member for Barton's criticism of the research done for the government by the Melbourne Institute. I should point out to the member for Barton that this research was commissioned in part in response to widespread calls for such research, including from the opposition. I am sure that the member for Barton, in his way, was doing his best to be fair to the Melbourne Institute research, but I point out to him that there has been no serious academic criticism of the Melbourne Institute's methodology. I was a bit surprised that the member for Barton made those criticisms without some academic backing for them. On the point that was suggested—rather than asserted—that the ABS regarded the kind of work that the Melbourne Institute did as being in some way methodologically invalid, I do not think that is fair. I may not be doing justice to the member for Barton, but if my take on what he said was that the ABS thinks ill of the work of the Melbourne Institute— JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—No.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—Okay. Let me say that the government did ask the ABS if it would be possible, using ABS data, to come up with figures on the impact of unfair dismissal laws on employment. The ABS came back to us and said that the best way to establish the employment impact of such legislation was through a survey of employers' attitudes. That is precisely what we tried to do with the Melbourne Institute survey. The member for Barton quoted the Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey of 1995 to justify the opposition's position that unfair dismissal laws have, at best, a marginal impact on employment. I have nothing against that particular survey. It was a fine survey and, finances permitting, the government would like to do an updated version. But the fact is that that survey only covered workplaces with more than five employees. Seventy per cent of small businesses employ fewer than five employees and therefore are out of the scope of the survey.The final significant point that the member for Barton made was about the filing fee and its presence in legislation rather than regulation. We are proposing to put it into legislation because we think that it is high time that this matter ceased being a regular bone of contention in the Senate. My understanding is that we are responding to the Australian Democrats' concerns by so doing. As to the quantum of the filing fee, $50 is not a huge amount of money, even to people who have just been dismissed, although I must concede that that is a difficult position to be in. The Queensland Industrial Commission has a $46.50 filing fee. Certainly other Commonwealth tribunals—such as the AAT, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Native Title Tribunal—have much higher filing fees. A $50 filing fee is the quantum for applications in the Magistrate's Court and, similarly, in the Federal Court for relief from unlawful termination, and I think it is a perfectly reasonable quantum.This is a very straightforward bill. I do not even think it should be controversial, although I accept that the opposition, for all sorts of reasons, feel it necessary to cling to the unfair dismissal laws as they introduced them in 1994 as a talisman of justice in the workplace. For various reasons, the opposition are determined to insist that the average boss is, at least potentially, a monster and the average worker is pretty weak and insipid. I do not think that is fair to bosses or workers. I want to finish this brief contribution by quoting what I think is the true position of the member for Barton. A couple of months ago, he said: ... at the end of the day Australian workers know that if we don't have employers we don't have employees and if we don't have successful employers we don't have well-paid and secure employees. What he said was true then, it is true now and it will be true. This bill, presented to parliament by the government, stands foursquare in the spirit of the member for Barton's dictum of a couple of months ago. I commend the bill to the House.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.10171Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:40:0010171McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3):(1) Schedule 1, before item 1, page 11 (before line 6), insertIA After paragraph 89A(2)(t)Insert “(u) issues arising in respect of a period for the purposes of paragraph 170 CBA(3)(a).”.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 25-27),omit paragraph (a), substitute: “(a) the employee is engaged by a particular employer on a regular and systematic basis for a sequence of periods of employment during a period of at least 6 months, unless a shorter period is specified in an award or certified agreement; and”.(3) Schedule 2 — Opposition to oppose.I will speak briefly to our proposed amendments to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002. I should indicate that the first two amendments relate to reducing the period during which a casual employee is exempted from the protection of unfair dismissal laws from 12 months to six months. That was the position, as the minister indicated, between 1993 and 1996. In suggesting that position, we are proposing a fair balance. The government may rely on the argument, in supporting their position, that the restrictions cannot be too great in respect of the employment of any employee because, if you do, it is like treading on a balloon: you will see a blow-out in other areas. We acknowledge that there are some merits in respect of that argument. For instance, by making it too difficult to employ casuals, there is the prospect of blowing out the engagement of labour hire, independent or fixed term contractors. That is an argument that we also note in respect of the genuine amendments that will be moved by the member for Calare. In other words, if you have purity and the disincentives are too great to engage employees, it will simply result in even greater numbers of employees being employed in even more insecure forms—namely, through labour hire engagements or through other independent contracting arrangements. We say that six months is the appropriate period. It is a period that was determined as fair and reasonable by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in the metals casuals case of 2000. The reasoning of the commission in that case was that a fair measure of when it is appropriate to start looking at transferring a casual employee to permanent employment is six months. We rely on that decision and the reasoning it contains and agree that the six-month period is an appropriate balance. In respect of the second amendment, we oppose schedule 2, which relates to the inclusion in the act of a filing fee. Again, as I indicated in our contribution to the second reading debate, the inclusion of a filing fee in legislation as opposed to regulation is an exception—indeed, I have been unable to find another example of that, although there may be one. Certainly, it is an exception to the rule that filing fees are traditionally determined in regulations and usually in consultation with the chief justice or the president of the relevant court or tribunal. As a matter of form, we believe that that should not be included in the act, and therefore we oppose it. In summary, I advance those reasons for the amendments moved by the Labor opposition.17:44:0010172Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I do not wish to detain the chamber any more than is absolutely necessary. I thank the member for Barton for the way he has chosen to handle this bill but, for the reasons I have already adverted to in my reply on the second reading, the government will be opposing the amendments.Question negatived.17:45:0010172Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—by leave—I move my amendments (1) to (4):(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 9), omit “C,”.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 11), omit “C,”.(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 22), omit “C,”.(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 27), omit “12 months”, substitute “3 months”.Speaking briefly to the amendments, I would be interested to know from the minister why the unlawful dismissal provisions cannot be dealt with here. Dismissal because of discrimination is unconscionable and we should not countenance including in any bill that passes through this House the removal of unlawful dismissal protection. I seek answers as to why it cannot be dealt with now. I will certainly seek to have it dealt with in the Senate, against my instincts, because it is here that the job should be done. As for amendment (4), the minister talks in a general sense quite often of working towards a standardised industrial scenario. Let us have the same rules for everybody, especially given the inherent disadvantages of casual workers, as I have pointed out in my speech in the second reading debate, vis-a-vis those of us who have a secure occupation and income—and, dare I say, before and after retirement. I commend the amendments to the chamber.17:47:0010173Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Without wishing to detain the chamber for very long at all, I do appreciate the spirit with which the member for Calare is seeking to make these changes and I am by no means unmindful of his concerns. As I said, I am certainly prepared to entertain a move in this direction should it be made, as I expect it might be, in another place. The problem with what we are now dealing with is that it has come rather late in the piece to us and I am advised by my officials that the intentions that the member for Calare has would be better effected by slightly different drafting. I understand that drafting advice has been provided to people who may seek to do something similar in another place, and therefore it would be more effectively done that way.Question negatived.Bill agreed to.10173Mr ABBOTT (Warringah—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) (5.49 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question put.17:53:00The House divided.(The Deputy Speaker—Ms Gambaro) 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.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hartsuyker, L.Hawker, D.P.M.Hull, K.E.Hunt, G.A.Johnson, M.A.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.King, P.E.Ley, S.P.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Panopoulos, S.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Randall, D.J.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Smith, A.D.H.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.Stone, S.N.Thompson, C.P.Ticehurst, K.V.Tollner, D.W.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Windsor, A.H.C.Worth, P.M.59Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M. *Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.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'Connor, G.M.O'Connor, B.P.Organ, M.Plibersek, T.Quick, H.V. *Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.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.Bill read a third time.Bill read a third time.Bills10174R157710174Debate resumed from 26 June, on motion by Dr Stone:That this bill be now read a second time.17:59:0010174Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—In rising to speak on the National Environment Protection Council Amendment Bill 2002, I first point out to the House that the National Environment Protection Council was established following an intergovernmental agreement on the environment back in 1992. Schedule 4 of that agreement provided for the establishment of the national body to make certain nationally consistent measures for the protection of the environment. That schedule also provided for legislation to be developed which would enable the Commonwealth and state parliaments to authorise the body to establish measures that established mechanisms for the application of measures in the states, and the legislation ensured that measures established by that body would apply throughout Australia as a valid law of each jurisdiction.The Commonwealth passed the National Environment Protection Council Act in 1994, with corresponding mirror legislation being made in the other jurisdictions at the same time. Membership of the council is made up of Commonwealth, state and territory ministers—not necessarily environment ministers. It is currently chaired by the Commonwealth environment minister. The council is supported by an officials level committee secretariat and operational support functions are performed by the service council, and both the committee and the service council were established by the original act.In June 2001, the Council of Australian Governments established the Environment Protection and Heritage Council. Under this arrangement, the NEPC effectively became a constituent part of the new ministerial council, but retained its identity as a statutory body with its powers and functions deriving from the National Environment Protection Council Act. The national environment protection measures which have been adopted by the council are pursuant to section 14 of the act, which sets out environmental issues that the council may address through the making of national environment protection measures. These are referred to in the trade as NEPMs. The ones which the council is allowed to address, pursuant to the legislation, are: ambient air quality; ambient marine, estuarine and freshwater quality; the protection of amenity in relation to noise, but only if differences in environmental requirements relating to noise would have an adverse effect on national markets for goods and services; general guidelines for the assessment of site contamination; environmental impacts associated with hazardous wastes; the reuse and recycling of used materials; and motor vehicle noise and emissions.In introducing the original act, the government said that these national environment protection measures were designed to: ... give all Australians the benefit of equivalent environmental protection and to ensure that investment decisions by business are not distorted by variations in environmental standards between Australian jurisdictions. It is pretty clear from that that the purpose of this legislation is to seek nationally consistent environment protection measures where a case is made for those measures in which we look not only to protect the environment but also to give business some certainty by having national measures, rather than a raft of different measures across the states. The act sets out a public consultation period for the development of these national environment protection measures. They are disallowable instruments for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act. Decisions to approve the final form of a national environment protection measure require a two-thirds majority of council members. Once the relevant measure comes into operation following tabling in the Commonwealth parliament, if it is not disallowed, implementation becomes mandatory for all the NEPC member jurisdictions. That act was supplemented by an implementation act of 1998, which set out various ways by which national environment protection measures could be applied to Commonwealth places and activities, for example, through applying state laws, the making of Commonwealth regulations or through the use of environmental audits or environmental management plans. In the last four years, the council has made six national environment protection measures. These are: ambient air quality, in July 1998; movement of controlled waste between states and territories, in July 1998; the national pollutant inventory, in July 1998; assessment of site contamination, in December 1999; on used packaging materials, in July 1999; and on diesel vehicle emissions, in June 2001. I understand that a measure on air toxics is also under development by the National Environment Protection Council. I want to come back to make some comments regarding three of those national environment protection measures, those concerning ambient air quality, used packaging materials and diesel vehicle emissions.The legislation provided for a review of the act. A review of the act was commissioned after five years of operation in 2000. The terms of reference included an examination of the various procedural practices of the council and its development of national environmental protection measures. The report recommended that: ... proposed variations to NEPMs that the NEPC consider to be of a minor nature be made through less complex notification and consultation procedures.The aims of this bill were and are to amend the 1994 act so as to enable the council secretariat to provide support and assistance to other environment related ministerial councils, to provide a simplified process for making minor variations to national environment protection measures and to require five-yearly reviews of the act. Its main provisions are amendments to subsection 6(1) and section 13 to provide that the council can direct the services corporation to provide assistance and support to other environment related ministerial councils and also to insert division 2A to streamline the procedure for making minor variations to NEPMs. I think it is fair to say that this is the main element of the bill. That streamlined procedure would only apply where the proposed variation is supported by a unanimous council resolution and the resolution states that the variation will not involve a significant change in the effect of the national environment protection measure.There is no guidance in the bill as to what would constitute a significant change. There is no requirement for the council to have reasonable grounds on which to base its conclusion as to the significance of the variation, although this issue must be included in the public consultation explanatory statement. Under the streamlined procedure, the council must prepare a draft of the proposed variation and a statement that explains the reasons for the proposed variation, the nature and effect of the proposed variation and the reasons the council is satisfied that it is minor—that is, not a significant change in its effect. The draft and explanatory statement are available for public comment for at least a month and notice of the public comment period must be published in a newspaper circulating in the relevant states or territories.When making a final decision on the proposed minor variation, the council must have regard to any submissions that it receives, the consistency of the measure with the principles of environmental policy set out in section 3 of that original agreement, relevant international agreements to which Australia is a party and any regional environmental differences in Australia. There are also new sections which would require the act to be reviewed at a rolling series of five-yearly intervals. The next review would be scheduled to start in 2005. The report of each review must be tabled in parliament within 12 months of the end of the relevant five-year period. These changes are minor in nature and are not, by and large, contentious. The only sticking point with the amendments concerns item 5. We do not have any definition of what constitutes a minor variation or what constitutes a significant change. So it seems to the opposition that we need to ensure that the definition of minor variation specifically excludes changes to environmental targets or objectives outlined in the national environment protection measure. I think that if the government picks up this amendment we can ensure that major changes are not effected without proper process. I intend to move an amendment to that effect in the consideration in detail stage of this legislation. I did indicate that I wanted to go to three of the national environment protection measures which the council has worked on and developed since it was established. The first of those concerns the air quality environment protection measure. The large majority of Australians live in cities and major urban areas and experience the impacts of air pollution, noise, congestion as well as things like dirty waterways, lack of green spaces and urban sprawl. Our quality of life and our physical and mental health is increasingly at risk from the degradation of urban environments. I think it is true to say that our major cities are straining under the pressure of the inherent car culture and congestion is an ever-increasing problem for commuters. The vehicle emissions coming from those cars are the major contributor to urban air pollution in Australia and, indeed, transport emissions account for almost one-fifth of Australia's greenhouse gas levels. In addition to the environmental stress, we have smog contributing to a number of everyday health problems such as asthma attacks, breathing difficulties and other respiratory illnesses.Australians are high car users and Australian cities have high car usage. In comparison to European cities we are 31 per cent higher and in comparison to Asian cities we are 77 per cent higher. Public transport in European and Asian cities is generally competitive with private transport in terms of speed. If we are going to meet our Kyoto targets and obligations then we need to deal with transport and, as part of the choices we make, we need to make sure that we reduce the transport component of our greenhouse gas emissions—that is simple maths. The problem is that our society has been constructed on a series of what are, essentially, unsustainable transport choices; and those choices severely impact on our air quality.It is at the level of state, territory and local governments that most of the specific actions that are needed will be implemented. Nonetheless, there does need to be a lead taken by the Commonwealth government in establishing a national approach and acceptance of the action necessary to maintain air quality in all our cities. I believe that the National Environmental Protection Council—established by uniform Commonwealth, state and territory legislation—has the capacity to be a powerful forum for the coordination of national policies and objectives. I hope that the government, which has not taken a genuine interest in public transport at all, would be looking to use a vehicle like this to promote public transport and through that reach that objective of maintaining, protecting and enhancing our air quality.I mentioned that one of the issues related to air quality was the role of private vehicles in greenhouse gas emissions. On that point, I notice that today Canada ratify the Kyoto protocol on climate change. Today is, in fact, the fifth anniversary of the Kyoto protocol being signed. It was signed back in 1997 when more than 150 countries agreed—including, at the time, Australia—at a global warming conference in Kyoto, Japan, to take action to control the earth's greenhouse gases. I note that this week New Zealand and Canada have acted to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It now only requires Russia to ratify it in order for it to come into effect and that is expected to happen early next year. I urge the Howard government, as I have done previously, to get serious about climate change, get serious about collective international action to tackle climate change and to ratify the Kyoto protocol. The second of the national environment protection measures that I wanted to make reference to is that dealing with used packaging materials. The goal of this national environment protection measure is to reduce environmental degradation arising from the disposal of used packaging and conserve virgin materials through the encouragement of reuse and recycling of used packaging materials by supporting and complementing the voluntary strategies in the National Packaging Covenant. The covenant, an industry self-regulatory instrument, aims to ensure that all involved in the packaging chain play their part in reducing packaging waste. The measure seeks to ensure that participants in the covenant are not unfairly disadvantaged in the marketplace and seeks to assist in achieving the waste reduction and recycling objectives of the covenant.The government has announced that it is investigating the introduction of a levy on plastic bags to reduce their use and environmental impact. From my point of view, that announcement is welcomed. The minister, Dr Kemp, has stated that, should voluntary measures under the National Packaging Covenant fail then:Obviously the levy is one particular approach that could be adopted.Plastic bags are a very visible component of litter in Australia throughout our cities, waterways, coastlines and countryside. They have a negative impact on our environment and our wildlife and their habitats. Plastic rubbish has been estimated to kill more than 100,000 birds, whales, seals and turtles worldwide every year. In my state of Victoria, 1½ billion plastic bags are used every year, or about 310 for each person in the state. It is worth noting that, back in March this year, the Irish government introduced a plastic bag levy of about $A0.27 per bag. This measure appears to have been highly successful. I understand that consumers have moved to reusable bags, which has led to a 90 per cent reduction in the use of plastic bags. The levy has also led to greater consumer awareness of litter and pollution issues.Labor will monitor the effectiveness of the national packaging covenant. Should it fail to produce a major reduction in the use of plastic bags and other packaging litter, we will be encouraging the government to look at overseas examples of the problem being tackled successfully. Quite a few members of the House would be aware of the campaign by Planet Ark around this issue. The concerns that Planet Ark have expressed are that plastic bags take a long time to biodegrade and are a common contaminant in council kerb-side recycling bins, which makes it harder to recycle. Plastic bags should go into the special plastic bag recycling bins that are now in many supermarkets. Plastic bags are a litter problem and an eyesore, and they can harm and kill wildlife.Despite the fact that alternatives, such as calico or string bags, are available, people keep using plastic bags—in fact, we use around six billion plastic bags per year, 3.3 billion of which are supermarket plastic bags. Sometimes people find it hard to break a habit voluntarily simply out of concern for the environment. After community education programs failed to make an adequate difference, the Irish government decided to give Irish shoppers a financial incentive to cut their use of plastic bags. Planet Ark, as many people would be aware, would like to see the Australian government and supermarkets get together to look at a similar program in Australia to cut our high use of plastic bags and to encourage people to use the alternatives that are available.It is fair to say that supermarkets in Australia have tried to encourage plastic bag recycling. Stores such as Coles, Woolworths and Safeways have all offered plastic bag recycling facilities; however, I understand that only around one per cent of plastic bags are currently being recycled in this way. It seems to me that we do need to try to move in the direction of biodegradable plastic bags. That is certainly something that Planet Ark is campaigning for. As has been shown in Ireland, people can avoid paying the plastic bag levy. All they have to do is to bring reusable bags to the supermarket when they shop. In that way, they do not have to pay for the checkout bags, which have the levy on them. I also note that Michael Meacher, the United Kingdom's environment minister, has asked his civil servants to look at the Irish success to see whether Britain can implement such a scheme. Denmark has a plastic bag levy, which has reduced plastic bag usage in that country by around 70 per cent. The final national environment protection measure that I want to refer to concerns that which relates to diesel emissions. The opposition has had representations from a company concerned with the issue of diesel catalytic converters. I want to put before the parliament and the government the issue that the company has raised and to invite the government to consider it and to respond at its convenience. As I mentioned earlier, there has been a report prepared by the National Environment Protection Council titled National Environment Protection (Diesel Emissions) Measure. This report, in conjunction with the draft Road Transport Reform (Vehicle Standards) Amendment Regulations 2001 and the current reviews by the government, has created a period of review and discussion but not really any effective immediate action. Federal government responsibility is directed towards the original equipment market. The after-market or in-service vehicle market segments have tended to fall within the responsibilities of the various state and territory governments.Presently we have a situation where emission and fuel standards were agreed on in the Measures for a Better Environment component of the A New Tax System package. There were a number of scenarios analysed at that time. Scenario 1 was no improvement in emission standards and no change in fuel from the existing 0.15 per cent sulfur content. That scenario assumed that the estimated emission rates for 2002 vehicles continued as the new vehicle rates until 2015. Scenario 2 involved no improvement in emission standards beyond the year 2002 but a reduction in diesel sulfur content to 0.05 per cent, commencing in 2003 and with further improvements in 2006. There was also a scenario 3, which involved introduction of what was called Euro 2 for light duty vehicles and Euro 3, or US 1998 emission standards, for heavy duty vehicles and a range of other measures. The general thrust of that program is to seek to achieve a 75 per cent reduction in diesel particulate emissions in the urban environment over a 15-year period and also to achieve a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.We noted in 2001 that the final report contained a reference to diesel retrofit programs. It said:The principal after-treatment technologies currently in use in retrofit programs are diesel oxidation catalysts and various types of particle traps/filters. Particle traps/filters can deliver large PM emission reductions in specific applications. To be effective they need to be carefully tailored to particular engines and in-service use patterns. Fuel sulfur levels must be < 500ppm, with some trap technologies requiring very low sulfur levels (around 50ppm) to be effective.According to the views expressed to the opposition by those with an interest in this particular issue, diesel oxidation catalysts are the cheapest after-treatment technology, require no maintenance and are very durable. One estimate of catalyst life is 600,000 kilometres. The view that they take is that retrofit programs should focus on the use of diesel oxidation catalysts in the medium term. They say that while the costs and other complexities with the use of particle traps tend to limit their adoption at this stage, they have the capacity to deliver substantial reductions in particulate matter emissions and may be a viable option where the particular fuel and engine operating conditions can be achieved.Those raising the issue say that the use of the diesel engine, with its associated simplicity compared to gasoline engines and its robust reliability and power output, has continued to be developed in the shadow of the higher polluting diesel fuels available in the market today. They also say that the development of a diesel catalytic converter that can be produced as original equipment or in-service sales has the potential for a new and untapped market. It is noted that the diesel catalytic converter has the potential to reduce carbon dioxide by around 14 per cent and that that would be a good thing. I encourage the government to have a look at these proposals and the interest in diesel catalytic converters to see whether they may play a role in meeting the government's objectives in terms of the diesel emissions measure it prepared back in 2001. As I indicated earlier in the debate, the measures in this legislation are not controversial. The opposition is supporting them. We do, however, have one amendment which we propose to move in the consideration in detail stage.18:24:0010179Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I appreciate the support of the opposition for the government's measures before the House this evening in the National Environment Protection Council Amendment Bill 2002 and I appreciate the note that the matters are not controversial. I am also pleased to pay tribute to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, under whose operations this bill comes to the parliament. Dr David Kemp has shown himself to be a very fine federal minister for the environment, as was his predecessor, Senator Robert Hill. The amendments to the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 provide a simplified process for making minor variations to the national environment protection measures and they require five-yearly reviews of that act.Unlike members of the opposition who merely talk about environmental protection, the coalition now has a substantive record of introducing measures to protect Australia's environment and population. There is an increased awakening among those who are very prominent in the environment movement, those who traditionally have not supported this government, and they now quietly recognise that the Howard government really has done more for the environment in the past seven years than any other government in the history of this country. Of course, the government does it for the right reasons. It is very important that the environment be protected and that we do everything we can to make sure that it stays healthy. You have only to travel to Asia to see how not to look after the environment. The sorts of things you see in Asia these days are absolutely appalling. I know that sometimes we are very critical of the environment in Australia and of some of the things we see, but when you see how people in some Asian countries treat their environment you know that Australia is doing a mighty job indeed.Since 1996 the Howard government has worked with the states and territories—and that is a good thing, too—to put in place six national environment protection measures covering issues that have been referred to in this debate, such as air quality, packaging and the national pollutant inventory. These measures ensure that people enjoy the benefit of equivalent protection from pollution wherever they live in Australia. I might just say that in relation to the environment I am very pleased to see the sugar assistance package is going to go through the Senate with a bonus for the Great Barrier Reef. As a member who represents North Queensland—Townsville and Thuringowa in my electorate are surrounded by very significant sugar growing and production areas; indeed, on the Herbert River we have the largest sugar mill in Australia—it is very pleasing to see that the reef bonus that is going to go through with the sugar assistance package will provide $30 million from government, both state and federal, over five years to protect and restore the wetlands adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. That is a mighty thing because it demonstrates the government's commitment to national environmental protection, but it also secures both the economic sustainability of the sugar industry and, at the same time, the environmental sustainability of the sugar industry.I know that some sugarcane farmers have been very concerned about water quality issues in relation to the Barrier Reef lagoon and they have been concerned that they may suffer some very harsh penalties, but that need not be the case. The allocation of this money will help the sugar industry to manage the problems that are identified in water quality in the environment of the Great Barrier Reef. It is a sensible outcome because, as we all know, the opposition was refusing to pass certain parts of that legislation. The government has been able to get a sensible outcome with the Australian Democrats, and I thank the Australian Democrats for seeing the benefit of the sugarcane package to the country and to the sugarcane farmers, who are in very difficult straits at the moment. It is going to be a very good outcome. In relation to other environmental matters I will refer to my own electorate, just as a microcosm of how the Howard government has managed environmental protection. In my electorate there are things like the protecting the biodiversity of Magnetic Island's Bolger Bay project, where $100,000 was allocated from the Natural Heritage Trust to purchase 17 hectares of land. Together with a grant from the state government and from the Magnetic Island Nature Care Association, that project aimed to lock up and conserve this very important parcel of land in Bolger Bay. That is something that could never have happened in the past. I also alert the parliament to the government's strong support of the Kakadu of North Queensland, the Cromarty wetlands. I am certainly very pleased that the current Minister for the Environment and Heritage, David Kemp, has gone on an early morning tour of the wetlands to see the wondrous beauty of the area and the possibilities for making it available for the enjoyment of visitors to North Queensland. That is a very significant project, and we are hoping to see the green light given to that when the state government finally makes its decision.Green Corps has been a very successful project, too, in many electorates across the country. In Townsville in my electorate we have had projects at Nome, Rose Bay and at the Upper Ross River to minimise the threatening of species, revegetate areas with indigenous species, and restore and conserve the natural values and biodiversity of remnant areas. In that sense these projects have been very good for our community and are very good for the teams that have worked so much, learnt so much and done so much for the environment. The Green Reserves project is another one that does not get a lot of attention. The Green Reserves teams at the Town Common in Townsville assist with the maintenance, enhancement and rehabilitation of a number of sites across the Town Common, a very significant environmental area indeed.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—It has an excellent environmentalist, too.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I thank the member for Leichhardt. I might say to the member for Leichhardt that I have certainly been very active in promoting the conservation values of the Great Barrier Reef.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—We should expand it.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—It has been bravely said that the government should consider expanding the size of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park to protect the outer reefs—I know I have the support of the member for Leichhardt on that—to protect the tourist industry and to make sure that there is a pristine product for all the tourist visitors to the member for Leichhardt's area. I am sure that is going to be something we will work very hard on. I have done a lot of work in relation to the World Heritage area and the declaration of the World Heritage area on Magnetic Island. The community on Magnetic Island has been very pleased to see that declaration, and it has produced a further awakening on Magnetic Island as to the need to respect the values of areas that are World Heritage listed.Finally, I indicate that the government's Coast Care program has also been very successful in relation to protecting the environment. There have been small amounts of money, but very significant outcomes. In my area it went to the Marine and Coastal Community Network, to the Townsville Region Bird Observers Club, to the Indo-Pacific Sea Turtle Conservation Group and so it goes on. I conclude my support for this bill by observing that the five-yearly reviews of the operation of the act will ensure that the National Environment Protection Council continues to be an effective model for delivering on national environmental protection objectives, including those in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment. The states and territories do support the bill; they will need to enact some minor legislation once it is passed. I thank the states and territories for supporting the government's very sensible legislation, which is before the parliament this evening. 18:35:0010181Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, for your indulgence in calling me. I appreciate it greatly, test you as I may at times. I am extremely happy to support the National Environment Protection Council Amendment Bill 2002. The truth is told in a number of ways in this parliament. This is essentially a Labor bill of 1994 that is being amended. It was a Labor government initiative of 1994 to protect the environment by setting up this regulatory authority—an authority that is federal in nature and led by the Commonwealth. Under the Keating Labor government in 1994, this package was put together on the basis that the Commonwealth and the states—I think at that time there was almost a complete job lot of coalition states and territories—would work together in harmony, or as harmoniously as possible in the circumstances. In fact, the minister for the environment at the time, Mrs Kelly, indicated that the projected intention—even though she did not take it through at the time because of some difficulties she had—was to have a harmonisation of federal and state governments on these issues rather than a total and uniform conjunction.When I came to have a look at this, apart from our briefing papers, the explanatory memorandum and the bill I thought that the library was a fabulous resource. I would probably be entirely tongue tied and unable to speak in this place without the effect and use of the Bills Digest.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—Oh, no!LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—It is suggested by one of the members that might not be the case; that may be quite true. However, the assistance of the library and the digest they provide are very great, so I thought, `I will do what I normally do; I will get onto ParlInfo and have a look.' For a few bills this week it has been a case of `Mother Hubbard'—the cupboard was bare. What was the situation with this one? There was the bill, certainly, and the explanatory memorandum, but the Bills Digest was from 1994. Until this amendment bill, nothing had actually changed. The whole core of the way the organisation worked, from 1994 until its first review in 2000, was fundamentally strong and it was a superb example of how the federal Labor government, taking the lead, could put together a cooperative package of harmonised legislation, with mirror legislation at the state level, to set about protecting the environment as strongly as was possible. This meant they had a number of areas that the council was asked to look at.The review found that since that time, in the previous five years, what had been achieved had by and large been substantial and that the work done was expected to continue with some variations. We are looking here at how to accommodate variations when you have mirror legislation. When I looked through the explanatory memorandum and the brief, I thought there was a problem with technical matters so I consulted our shadow minister. I think it is the case—and I would be happy for the parliamentary secretary to elucidate on this when he rounds up the discussion—that, across the range of subjects that the council deals with, it is intended that this legislation deal with minor changes. Minor changes could be announced or advertised for a month or so, reactions to what had been announced could be taken into account and then, through the secretariat, which is a subset of the council and supported by the states and Commonwealth, the changes that the council itself considered to be minor could be incorporated into the way the council operates. I do not think it would require mirror legislation in the states because the council is a creature of the Commonwealth and the states. It was initiated in a way that was meant to take that into account, making changes over time in conjunction with each other. I am not sure about this; that is why I was asking the question. I think that is the fundamental reason this bill is here. The specific measures in regard to what is minor and how that will operate are key elements within this bill.After the process of advertising and listening to people and hearing what they have to say, when a final decision on the proposed minor variation is made, then a new subsection 22C should provide that the National Environment Protection Council must have regard to: (a) any submissions it receives; (b) the consistency of the measure with the principles of the environmental policy set out in section 3 of the IGAE; (c) the relevant international agreements to which Australia is a party; and (d) any regional and environmental differences in Australia. This means they have to take notice of what people are saying, they have to make sure there is a concordance and consistency with the existing principles that are involved and, in Australia and outside, they have to consider the impact of making the changes. If they do that, this could be done by the council at council level without the parliament having to consider every minor change. I expect that the question of what is a significant or major change would be defined in the explanatory memorandum if not in the bill or a schedule to it. Normally, at the front of a bill you will not only get a rundown of what the bill is about; you will also get a rundown of how the vocabulary and text of the bill will be interpreted. It is a guide to the lawyers—it is their chaff, lucerne or hay; what they feed on—for taking these matters to court if they have to. The question of definition is extremely important, and the bill attempts to talk about what `minor' means but we have no idea of quantum, depth, width or anything else about what might be significant change. Therefore, I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary dealing with this could answer the question, whether it is well founded or not. I think the question of why there is no definition of significant change will be reasonably significant. Maybe it was a question that was either too hard to posit or too hard to answer. Is it possible that, in thinking these things through, it was a case that these were matters for judgment? As a former Governor-General once used to say, `These are matters for judgment.' They are matters for judgment for this Environment Protection Council. Do they have to weigh up something that is so qualitative that it is their responsibility to work out whether it is a minor or major or significant change? I would appreciate an answer to that.The aims of the bill overall include enabling the council's secretariat to provide support and assistance to other environment related ministerial councils. One of the odd things about this bill is that, even though it is a conjunction of ministers from state and federal level and even though it is the National Environment Protection Council Act, it does not actually have to be composed of environment ministers. It so happens that, at this time, the chair is the federal minister for the environment but you could have ministers from any portfolio. One might think that is pretty strange—maybe it was; maybe that was not looked at in 1994—but, then again, it may be fruitful. This is a bit like language across the curriculum. In dealing with the problems teachers have teaching students in science, maths or whatever, in the very far past they did not bother defining what they were talking about, they did not bother explaining it simply to their students. One of the great moves with language across the curriculum was to say, `If you are a science or maths or geography teacher, you have a responsibility to define your key terms.'If we had a cross-cultural, cross-brief or cross-portfolio approach—and we know the environment is not isolated unto itself—and if ministers for transport and ports at the Commonwealth level and ministers for roads and public works at the state level were involved, we might get a better result environmentally. Those state ministers would be in a position to be better informed about the environmental consequences and the steps that their departments would need to take in order to protect the environment in their states more effectively. That is an extremely important aim. Even though it does not seem to be as significant as one might expect, there may be something more fruitful in this over the years than expected. Then again, maybe there will not be. It would be interesting to know.The second major aim of the bill is to provide a simplified process for making minor variations to national environment protection measures. I spoke about that at length in the first part of my speech. The third requires five-yearly reviews of the act. We know that the first was done in 2000, which was roughly at its proper time. We know also that a sensible government approaches the operation of its entities on a regular basis and reviews how well they are doing. This government in 1998 made a series of changes which impacted on this council and in June 2001—if the brief is right—there were a series of other changes made when the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, established the Environment Protection and Heritage Council. At that point, the entity that is dealt with in this bill was subsumed as part of that new entity. You could argue that a greater recognition at federal and state levels—and it has been pushed by the states; they have tried to take up their responsibilities on a range of issues—through the operation of this council, that mirrored concordance or harmonisation was useful in standards being set and kept Australia-wide. This is an example of Federation operating as it should and not of Federation operating on the basis of being pulled apart. Remember that it was initiated through a Labor bill in 1994. Even pygmies can stand on the shoulders of giants on this matter. The environmental steps this government has taken have been of two different characters or natures. The basis of those were the environmental measures embedded in the environment portfolio, and across a series of portfolios, in 1994 and prior to the coalition government taking over in 1996. When the government put forward the National Heritage Trust legislation in the first year of a rebadged operation, it was composed of all of Labor's environmental programs. The council was an operative part of that to ensure the regulation was right and, in a range of areas—ambient air quality, ambient marine, estuarine and fresh water quality and some others I will come to later—it was important to ensure cooperative action so that people did not get outside the range. The experience has been that, if you do it sensibly, if you have one national standard and if people cooperate, you can solve a lot of problems.A range of problems are still extant in terms of the differences between states—on teacher qualifications, on what they will accept from students and so on—but we know this government adopted a simple rebadging of Labor's programs and, in budgetary terms, added as a one-off in the first year $84 million in funding. So what they heralded as a $1.2 billion program was an $84 million program of new moneys. They have run for 6½ years—and it will be seven in March next year—on being the government most concerned about the environment. Palpably, what Labor did in 1994 was strong and true, because the only amendments in the bill are to make this council work in protecting the environment and its constituent elements on a whole of continent basis and to do that more effectively by incorporating minor changes. We also know—and I say this in passing; although it is not directly related to the bill, it is directly related to the larger issue—that the strength of the Australian economy heralded by those opposite day after day is based on the fundamental foundational work done by the Labor government between 1983 and 1996.We could not escape the recession of 1991. Neither could the Fraser government escape the recession—largely generated by them—of 1982-83. The core reason we avoided the recession here and survived the meltdown in Asia was that the strength of the Australian economy had been deepened greatly. The nature and character of our economy is entirely different from what it was before Labor came to power in 1983 and it was entirely different from 1985-86 on when the then Treasurer, in the banana republic statement, woke up the country as a whole to the fact that we needed fundamental change to the way in which our economy and its very foundations were structured. The benefits of that are going to the Australian people at large; the political benefits are accruing to this government.It is my contention that in equal measure the environmental moves that we made in environmental policy in relation to this bill—and we are happy to support it because we own it, because we generated it—and in economic structuring and foundation in the revitalisation of this country is a Labor achievement of the highest order that is matched only by what we did in superannuation. Time after time, the coalition government has attempted to steal and rebadge not only Labor's environmental measures but also our economic, fiscal and financial measures. 00AMVHunt, Gregory, MPLN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Yap, yap, yap. Time and again we have yapping from the new member for Flinders. I would appreciate it if he would speak when his turn comes rather than butting in.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! I suggest to the honourable member for Blaxland that he ignore the interjections.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—True, but at times a bit more courtesy and civility would not go amiss.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—I remind the honourable member for Flinders that interjecting and interrupting is totally disorderly.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that corrective action in respect of the errant member and me.00AMVHunt, Gregory, MPLN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—He has actually given me parliamentary protection, so it is not just about environmental protection but about parliamentary protection as well.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member should ignore what is going on around him and stick to the bill before the House.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—There were external stimuli that took me away from it, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER—I know this bill is about the environment, but do not be influenced by the environment.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Not the parliamentary environment, I agree. Labor is proud of its past history in the broader environmental area and in the economic area, and it needs to be restated that these are the fundamental strengths of the new, enlarged, dynamic Australian economy that this government has had a few wins with politically since 1996. They are based on a solid foundation.The National Environment Protection Council has about five other areas of interest: the protection of amenity in relation to noise, subject to a few specific rejoinders; general guidelines for the assessment of site contamination—and we know that they were used in Canberra with the swap between the Commonwealth and the ACT of land on Acton Peninsula for land at Kingston, the responsibility for which was taken by the ACT government because they will make money from the Kingston land that they will flog for residential apartments; environmental impacts associated with hazardous wastes; the reuse and recycling of used materials—and we heard our shadow minister deal with the plastic bag issue in this parliament, a significant issue and one that directly relates to the whole recycling question; and motor vehicle noise and emissions. All of these areas have been subject to investigation by this council over a number of years. I think the council has done a wonderful job. Minor changes need minor amendments, and that is what this bill provides. However, I would appreciate an answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to the questions I advanced at the start. Labor support the bill and trust that our amendment gets through. (Time expired)18:55:0010184Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I was bowled over by the contribution from the member for Bankstown. But credit where credit is due: this is an idea that had its genesis in the former government, and it has been worked, applied, enhanced and developed under the current government. I understand the member for Bankstown's history, being a staffer to the former member for Bankstown, our former Prime Minister—83DMurphy, John, MPMr Murphy—The member for Blaxland.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—My apologies. Thank you for that helpful heckling. I can understand the member for Blaxland's nostalgia about that. Had he had an extra two minutes to speak, I think the sunshine and this magnificent land of Terra Australis might also have been creations of the Labor Party. But, without getting too nostalgic, in this respect—and in a few other comments that the member for Blaxland made—this is a measure that had its genesis under the former government. What has happened, though, is that it has been enhanced, applied and developed by the current government. In the last four years, you can see national environment protection measures for ambient air quality, movement of controlled waste between states and territories, the national pollutant inventory, assessment of site contamination, used packaging materials and diesel vehicle emissions. So it is not as if this measure has just been sitting around because it was so magnificent in its form, as advocated by the member for Blaxland; it has actually been worked and applied. It is important to recognise, though, that there is a good reason for this measure. Pollution in our atmosphere does not drift over one area and think, `Gee, I am at the border now. I'll stop, I'll disappear.' It drifts into adjoining jurisdictions. The idea of wastes being handled by simply putting them on the back of a truck and moving them into another jurisdiction does not deal with the substantive environmental challenge of dealing with the waste. It is the same situation with something that the member for Flinders and I have been particularly interested—that is, the issues around ambient water quality in coastal and riparian environments. A pollutant, particularly if it is in the south-east of Queensland, does not stay there. It might find its way into New South Wales and vice versa. The Federation that was gifted to us more than 100 years ago does create jurisdictional boundaries, but those boundaries do not become confining factors in environmental challenges. That is why this whole concept of a National Environment Protection Council and the measures that it implements are important, because it needs to go across those jurisdictions to make sure it deals with the object of the task—that is, the environmental challenge.Today, as the member for Blaxland pointed out, the amendments before the House are not of biblical significance; they are modest finetuning. They need to be supported, and that is why no-one has spoken against them. They are sensible and they deserve support. The first measure is about the simplification process for making minor variations. Those familiar with the National Environment Protection Council and the way a measure is created know that it has to go through a number of stages—the development, the advertising, the gazettal and then disallowable instrument—and it can take some time. But, once the National Environment Protection Council approves it in its final form by a two-third vote, it becomes binding on all of the jurisdictions. So even if one state did not like it but there was a two-third majority vote in favour of the measure then all jurisdictions are obliged to implement that measure. Therefore, that process is, of its very nature, quite exhausting. It involves a great deal of consultation and opportunity for input not just from the jurisdictions themselves but from other interested parties that will be affected by the measure. That, though, represents a fairly thorough, comprehensive process, appropriate in most cases where something new and substantial is before the environment council. What it does not do is deal with minor amendments. The minor amendment process need not be that complicated. The minor amendment process can be far more streamlined, and that is what is provided for in the bill before the House.It is not as if these minor amendments will appear out of nowhere. There is a process—an alternative, streamlined pathway—which deals with them as minor variations, not as some entirely new obligation. The member for Blaxland inquired about how that process operates. Where it differs from a complete measure or a significant variation is that it is passed unanimously by the members of the council. All the members of the National Environment Protection Council have to agree that it is a minor measure. If someone has a different view, it goes nowhere. That is one of the safeguards that are embedded in this particular amendment. For the member for Blaxland's information, that is how that judgment operates. It is a judgment by consensus. All members of the council need to agree that it is minor. In one of those great quirks of parliamentary and statutory drafting, it says a minor amendment is a minor amendment that everyone agrees is a minor amendment. That is how that works. For the member for Blaxland's information, that is the safeguard: if someone has a different view, the proposal does not get up and it has to go through the more comprehensive process. They are the mechanics of the process. There is still a public advertising process and an obligation to consult. Another amendment in the bill will ensure that the minor amendment is consistent with the broader objects of the bill and with the guiding principles that the National Environment Protection Council operates under. That is worth while, it is appropriate and it deserves to be supported. The bureaucratic infrastructure that supports the National Environment Protection Council is recognised as having competence that should be available to other ministerial councils. They have the horsepower; let us benefit from it. A proposition in the bill before the House provides for that. It allows for the service corporation to provide support, advice and assistance to other ministerial councils. But there is a check on that as well: the council also has to resolve that that is appropriate. The service corporation cannot duck off and say, `We are going to provide advice to anyone we feel like providing it to.' There is a constraint on that activity as well.The final measure contained within this amending bill is the five-yearly review process. That is appropriate as well. When I look back at some of the national environment protection measures that I have mentioned briefly, they leave me with a question about the role that local government has to play. The National Environment Protection Council has on it, as an observer, a representative from the Australian Local Government Association. That observer status recognises that local government has a particular role to play. What interests me and what will be increasingly before the National Protection Council—and, no doubt, will be part of these reviews into the future—is the question of whether that local government role needs to be upgraded. Think about the coastal environment and some of the pollutants, such as stormwater. In Port Phillip Bay, that fantastic body of water, part of which the member for Flinders and I have the pleasure of representing, the biggest single threat is stormwater. The analyses that the EPA, Melbourne Water and the former state government have done recognise that the biggest single pollutant, the greatest threat to that ecosystem and marine environment, is stormwater.I have canvassed this issue previously with the government, and I think we need to do a bit more work on it. Maybe using the National Environment Protection Council is the way to go about it. If, over the time, that idea is embraced, the challenge cannot be dealt with without including local government. They have a responsibility for the drainage infrastructure and the management of stormwater. So much of the great work done by CDS Technologies in my electorate—for instance, where they have used centrifugal force and gross pollutant traps to pull out waterborne pollutants such as litter, sediment and hydrocarbons—is primarily a local government function, at least around Greater Melbourne, until you get to the very substantial stormwater pipes that are Melbourne Water's jurisdiction. That is an example of how intergovernment relationships, cooperation and coordinated activity are required to fix a problem. Over time, that challenge will be increasingly before us.I was going to talk more about the future opportunities for the National Environment Protection Council to expand its activities and to embrace some of the work that it has already done, but I am mindful that the government is keen to see this bill progress with haste, given that there is such strong support for it on both sides of the parliament. My final comment is probably one for the member for Blaxland, and it is that some remarkably significant achievements in environment protection, conservation and biodiversity management have been undertaken by the Howard government. It is the greenest government in this nation's history. Nobody has worked harder, invested more money or driven more innovation and policy insights in the environment area than this government. In the moments when the member for Blaxland is being very nostalgic and trying to rebadge everything as a Labor creation, he should not forget that great achievements and great progress have been made under the stewardship of the Howard government.19:05:0010186Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—I am delighted to speak on the National Environment Protection Council Amendment Bill 2002. I am delighted because it is an important inclusion in the armoury of actions which we take to protect our natural environment. There are great benefits from the process of modernisation. Those benefits provide us with health, education, economic expansion and the capacity to live lives which were previously unimaginable. But there are consequences which come from that process, and one of them is the problem of the transboundary movement of a range of hazards. Some of those are human hazards. They are the hazards of crime, terror and the challenges which occur if a cold is caught on one side of the global economy and flows to the other. All up, there is clearly a net benefit, but there are those risks. In addition to those risks, there is the environmental risk—one that is clear, absolute and unequivocal. The environmental risk posed by transboundary movement is that our air, our water and our soil, the basic environmental elements, all face threat from the movement of particles, substances and other forms of pollutants. This is where the National Environment Protection Council fits in, and I commend the previous government for its creation and I commend the current government for its expansion, enhancement and improvement. In particular, I want to pay tribute to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage for his work and to the member for Dunkley, who has just departed the chamber, as chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Heritage. This particular bill does a number of things. It is designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the government's commitment to environmental protection. Through the bill, a range of national environment protection measures can continue to improve the protection given by the government to the Australian environment. It began in 1994 with the National Environment Protection Council Act. This bill has evolved and developed since then. In particular, the Howard government has taken six national environment protection measures which have played a significant role in expanding the protection and care of the environment within Australia. The first measure was that of ambient air quality, brought into being in July 1998. Ambient air quality has been improved, with all states and territories having approved air quality monitoring plans. Through these improved air quality monitoring plans, consistent information is now available. This reveals that goals are being met and that we are moving in the right direction in terms of air quality. A lot more needs to be done, but a lot has been done. The second measure which was taken was the creation of a national pollutant inventory, also in July 1998. The national pollutant inventory facilities have doubled since that first year. Over 150 major industries are reporting on the problem of pollutants and providing information which is critical to solving those issues. The third measure is the movement of controlled waste between states and territories, also implemented in July 1998. The importance of controlled waste movement between states and territories is that it allows us to understand the major hazards associated with land and rail transport. The fourth measure is the used packaging material measure. This covers the gap created by brand owners who are not signatories to the national packaging covenant, and it has encouraged more signatories to the covenant. The fifth measure involves the diesel vehicle fuel emissions and is actively reducing the emissions of particles, oxides and smoke from diesel vehicles. This has a critical local impact in areas where diesel is prominent in closed or limited environments. The sixth measure on air toxics is due to be completed in April 2003.Against that background, what is the importance of this bill? In light of these important national environment protection measures, it is appropriate to consider improving the process and functioning of the National Environment Protection Council. The bill will do this in three ways. Firstly, it will allow minor variations to be made to the national environment protection measures simply and efficiently. It will provide an administrative mechanism for taking rapid responses, for working quickly, for adjusting the flaws, for dealing with new issues and for allowing this to occur in a fast, efficient manner. Secondly, the bill will require, at a systemic level, a review of the National Environment Protection Council Act every five years. This means that the goals will be considered, revised and reviewed. It means that the notion of national environment protection will be conceived on a systemic basis and will be viewed as a series of interconnected parts. Thirdly, the bill will extend the ability of the National Environment Protection Council to assist other ministerial councils. All of these things taken together represent an important step forward, but there is a lot more to be done. I want to focus, in particular, on the question of what can be done on the issue of water. We face a challenging situation in Australia. It is arguable that the states have failed in their custodial responsibility to preserve, conserve and administer the long-term health of our nation's waterways, be they freshwater or coastal. The result is that we have significant damage on many of our coastal fronts. The Commonwealth is working to address this but the states have systemically failed to address it. I believe we need a national ocean outfall strategy. There are over 140 ocean outfalls around Australia's coastline and between them they put out over 1.35 trillion litres of secondary stage water every year. One, that is a threat to the environment. Two, it is a risk to health. Three, it is an extraordinary waste of a valuable resource in a country which is dry. We need a national ocean outfall strategy aimed at ending the waste of water and the damage which results from that waste by the year 2025—and it should be national, clear and absolute.The second issue I want to address is the broader need for a national water policy. In terms of the health of the Murray-Darling Basin system, the Murray River and the Snowy River, the states have been given custodial responsibility for water but have singularly failed to work on a coordinated basis to achieve that outcome. The Prime Minister and the minister for environment, through the Council of Australian Governments water policy and program, are working to bring that together. I believe we need to go a step further and establish a long-term, 20-year approach to an Australian national water policy. It should be driven through the Commonwealth but administered and controlled by the states. Ultimately, this bill represents an important step forward. It brings together and enhances the range of controls as a means of facing transboundary movement and all sorts of hazards to our environment. It is a critical step forward but, in the specific area of water, we need a national ocean outfall strategy and a broader national water policy, both conceived on the basis that they represent our responsibility to the next generation. They are fundamental steps if we are to ensure that we are not engaged in an act of generational theft. If we can add those, over the course of the next two to three years, to the armoury provided under the National Environment Protection Council and the enhancements made by this bill, we will truly have created a system which we can be proud of and we will have given a worthy gift to the next generation. I commend the bill to the House.19:15:0010188Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—I am delighted to speak on the National Environment Protection Council Amendment Bill 2002 and to be able to follow my friend and colleague the member for Flinders. I want to acknowledge in this parliament his very strong enthusiasm and support for environmental matters. I know that he has a particular interest and a genuine interest in this area of policy debate. I commend him for all the wonderful work he has done in his electorate of Flinders. The National Environment Protection Act 1994 is amended by this bill. It provides a simplified process for making variations to national environment protection measures, which means essentially that minor amendments can take place quickly and at little cost. The bill is not controversial or contentious and I was delighted to hear the member for Blaxland acknowledging that and supporting the bill. I do contest very strongly his comments in this place that the environment is the prerogative of the opposition and that this bill is an opposition bill. I say to the member for Blaxland that that is somewhat laughable. This bill requires five-yearly reviews of the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994, which will ensure that it continues to be an effective model for delivering the national environment protection objectives therein. Another important measure it provides for is to allow the National Environment Protection Council Service Corporation to provide support and assistance to other ministerial councils, which means that the statutory secretariat for the NEPC can extend its services to the Environment Protection and Heritage Council. That will be more efficient and cost-effective than having two secretariats. That is what this is all about. These amendments will ensure that the true objectives of the original act are kept intact, and that is what we want to achieve in this parliament, that the objectives of the parliament and of the legislation passed by the government are fulfilled. I think it is vital to ensure that all Australians enjoy the benefits of protection from air, water, soil and noise pollution wherever they live in Australia. I know that all my colleagues on this side of the parliament very strongly advocate that. I am sure that every member of this parliament very strongly supports good legislation such as this which protects and promotes environmental issues in this country.This act also exists to ensure that decisions of the business community are not distorted and markets are not fragmented by variations between jurisdictions when they implement major environment protection measures. I am delighted that that is the case. There is a clear need to make these improvements to the original act and ensure that the progress made over recent years in regard to environmental protection measures is continued. Lots of progress has been made during the administration of the Howard government. I know that this government has a very strong focus on environmental measures and I compliment the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and his department, who are working very hard to ensure that this country's natural environment is there for future generations. The coalition has shown a deep commitment to working with the states and territories to develop national environment protection measures to address some of the challenges that we certainly face in this country. I want to take some time to mention some of the environment protection measures that the Howard government has put before this parliament and therefore the country. My colleague the member for Flinders referred to some of these measures and I will refer to them quickly as well. They include measures for ambient air quality, made in July 1998; the movement of controlled waste between states and territories, made in July 1998; a national pollutant inventory, made in July 1998; the assessment of site contamination, made in December 1999; used packaging materials, made in July 1999; and diesel vehicle emissions, made in June 2001. As mentioned by the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in the second reading speech to this bill, since 1998 the contribution of those measures to environmental protection in Australia has been significant. Major industry sectors reporting to the national pollution inventory have nearly doubled. In its third year there are more than 150 major industry sectors reporting. All states and territories now have approved air quality monitoring plans to enable soundly based and consistent reporting on performance against the ambient air measure. There is now a national scheme as well under the controlled waste measure to ensure that controlled wastes are moved from one jurisdiction to another only if they are transported and disposed of safely, and with the consent of all state and territory authorities. They are some of measures I can refer to. It is very important that these measures are acknowledged in this parliament and that the people of Australia know the terrific work this government is doing to protect and promote the environment through these sorts of initiatives.I will take a few moments to speak about the Natural Heritage Trust. I think it is a very important trust to talk about in this place. When we came to office in 1996, the Howard government allocated $1.5 billion over six years to the Natural Heritage Trust, the largest and most successful environmental restoration program in this country's history. It is quite historical and quite unprecedented and is important for future generations. In the 2001-02 budget the trust was extended for a further five-year term commencing in 2002-03, with an injection of an additional $1 billion. An estimated 370,000 volunteers have contributed to Natural Heritage Trust projects that repair and regenerate our local environment in communities scattered across the country. I know that all members of the parliament are very supportive of the wonderful work that volunteers do throughout the communities of Australia. This trust is a great initiative because it empowers local communities to identify and solve environmental problems in their local communities. It is empowering the local people, who know where the issues are and where the challenges are, so that they themselves can address those. They know best. I think it is quite disappointing—indeed, it is appalling—that the ALP opposition was very much against the creation of the Natural Heritage Trust, which, as I said earlier, was the largest environmental restoration program in this country's history. It is important to make the point that sound environmental policy is underpinned by sound economic management—and this country certainly has a government that looks after the Australian economy. Without the Australian economy, we cannot protect our environment and address many of the other important national issues that face the people of Australia into this country's future. I am going to finish my remarks by saying that I am delighted to be able to say to the people of Ryan that in this parliament I am working hard with my colleagues and the senior ministers responsible for this portfolio—and they are doing a wonderful job. To the people of Ryan and those with a very strong interest in environmental projects, rest assured that your work is being regarded here.19:23:0010190Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—in reply—In summing up this debate on the National Environment Protection Council Amendment Bill 2002, I would like to thank the shadow minister for his exposition on the making of the NEPC Act and his support for the amendment bill. As the member for Wills, the shadow minister, noted, this government has very fully implemented the act and the measures. In particular, he drew the House's attention to the national packaging covenant and his support for the government's work on investigating all options for reducing the impact of plastic bags. The plastic bags working group—comprising industry, community, and state and Commonwealth government representatives—met on 24 October, and they are now developing a range of options for the covenant council to place before governments. We are joining other countries in tackling this problem, which is most significant.I thank the member for Lindsay for his supportive remarks on the diesel emissions NEPM—the diesel NEPM, as it is generally known. There are some significant projects under way in the states to implement this. There is large-scale testing of diesel buses and trucks in Sydney and Brisbane. There is training of diesel mechanics in emissions, and technologies under way in Melbourne and this may be articulated nationally. Dr Kemp last week announced an $8 million grant to South Australia to undertake diesel testing and repairs. Perhaps the biggest single project is the national in-service emissions study, which will test and analyse data for thousands of vehicles across Australia. This data will be used to generate airshed models and improve policy settings, especially at state level.The member for Blaxland does not seem to understand the reason there needs to be mirror legislation in the states and territories, and why there are, therefore, mirror amendments to the acts. As he notes, the act is an example of cooperation between the Commonwealth, states and territories, and thus is duplicated legislation. It is also the mechanism for individual states and territories to implement national environmental protection measures and to report on their implementation.Let me say in conclusion that since 1998 Australian governments have put in place six national environmental protection measures. These are: for ambient air quality, made in July 1998; for the movement of controlled waste between states and territories, made in July that same year; a national pollutant inventory, made in July 1998; the assessment of site contamination, made in December 1999; for used packaging materials, made in July 1999; and for diesel vehicle emissions, made in June 2001. The act is being amended to provide a simplified process for making minor variations to national environmental protection measures, to require five-yearly reviews of the National Environment Protection Council Act 1994 and to allow the NEPC Service Corporation to provide support and assistance to other ministerial councils. There are significant benefits to government, industry and community. Minor amendments can take place quickly, with little cost, without unduly restricting stakeholder consultation, for example. The statutory secretariat to the National Environmental Protection Council can extend its services to the EP and Heritage Council, which is more efficient and cost-effective than having two secretariats. The states and territories agreed in May of this year to exposure of the draft bill. They are now waiting for the Commonwealth to pass the bill before introducing mirror amendments to their own legislation. I very strongly commend this bill to the House.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.1019119:27:0010191Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I move opposition amendment (1):(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 10), after paragraph (b), insert: ; and (c) the variation does not change environmental targets or objectives outlined in the national environment protection measure.As I indicated in the debate on the second reading, it is a comparatively small amendment. But there is a sticking point in that, as the bill stands, there is no definition of a minor variation or what constitutes a significant change. Given that it does seem to the opposition to have some potential for abuse, the intent of the amendment is to specifically exclude changes to environmental targets or objectives outlined in a national environment protection measure from being affected under section 22A. I think this is a useful amendment which provides some protection so that the new streamlining procedures will not be abused. I do not intend to speak on it at any length now, and there is no reason to delay the passage of the bill through the House with lengthy debate, divisions or things of that character. But I would encourage the government to consider the amendment between here and another place.19:28:0010191Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—Let me just say very quickly that of course we acknowledge the concern of the shadow minister and the member for Blaxland that a minor variation should indeed be minor, but the amendment bill contains, we believe, sufficient safeguards to protect the environment. Variations require that there is no significant change in the effect of the NEPM. The opposition amendment simply provides an example of a significant change. It is already covered in the bill, we believe. There is sufficient public consultation at 22B for it to be a corrective should the unanimous decision by council to make a minor variation be defective.Question negatived.Bill agreed to.10191Dr STONE (Murray—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) (7.29 p.m.)—by leave—I move:That this bill be now read a third time.Question agreed to.Bill read a third time.Adjournment1019110000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.1019119:30:0010191Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Yesterday the member for Werriwa and I proposed as a matter of public importance this topic: The need for an effective border security strategy, including an Australian coastguard. It is a serious matter, and we had hoped for a serious debate in which people could sensibly put their views for and against whether Australia needed an Australian coastguard. We had hoped to engage the government in a sensible debate on this matter because we understand how important it is to Australia and to all of Australia's people. We did not get the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, Danna Vale, in here talking about it; we got the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs coming in here, making lame contributions and not seriously addressing the issues to do with Australia's border security. In the adjournment debate tonight I want to draw attention to the contribution in that debate of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the member for Hindmarsh. It was a cruel contribution in which she belittled and ridiculed the contribution of Australian coastguard volunteers. I want to read into Hansard some of the things she said in that debate. She said: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?' She went on to say: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? Talking about our contribution, she went on to say:`Let's get rid of the Pacific strategy. Instead, we'll bring in Collie the coastguard and the flotilla of little volunteer boats.' In our policy, we were talking about substantially increasing the role of Australian coastguard volunteers. We want to back our people. We understand that these people make an enormous contribution to safety on the water. We understand that these people make an enormous contribution already in the role that they play in assisting the state maritime police. We understand that they make an enormous contribution in search and rescue and in saving Australian lives. I want to say to the government: you might not think much of these people, but we do. You might not think much of their contribution—and seek to belittle it—but we do, and there are a few very good reasons for that.The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs sought to present these people as being ridiculous, as being fools out there in little rowboats bobbing around in the Indian ocean. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Australian Volunteer Coast Guard Association are a serious, well-resourced, large organisation. They have some 3,500 or 4,000 volunteers, and they take their work very seriously—and so they should. In their objects, they state the following as their priorities:(i) To promote safety in boating and the use of pleasure craft in the Commonwealth of Australia.(ii) To assist in the preservation of life and property of the members of the Association and others.(iii) To assist persons on or adjacent to the waters of the Commonwealth of Australia who as a result of misadventure or otherwise have endangered their lives or the lives of others or who most conveniently can be assisted by members of the Association.(iv) To train members and the public in the use of sea craft and seamanship, first aid and resuscitation.Finally, and very importantly:(v) To train personnel capable of assisting in the defence of the Commonwealth of Australia upon the seas and elsewhere.The member for Hindmarsh sought to present these people as ridiculous and as not having any resources. Maybe she should do a bit of research and get out and talk to these people. The Australian Volunteer Coast Guard alone have 95 rescue boats, 147 radio bases under the control of 63 flotillas, 30 communication and display bands, four fixed-wing aircraft and, of course, a range of qualified divers. They take their work seriously, and we take what they do and the contribution they make seriously as well. The Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol is a similarly important organisation, and we seek to bring these two organisations together to assist with the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard effort. We want to back our people. That is what Labor's approach to the coastguard is all about. There has been some talk about whether or not the member for Hindmarsh was drunk when she made those remarks. 10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order!84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I want to say that I do not know whether she was drunk or not—10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! Order!K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—Full as a boot.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for McMillan will withdraw that imputation.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—I withdraw.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will withdraw that interjection.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I withdraw.1019319:35:0010193Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6CanningLP10—I raise as a matter of concern issues relating to the Tonkin Highway extension stage 1 in my electorate of Canning. The extension is to be constructed from Albany Highway in Martin to Thomas Road in Byford. The predicted cost of this extension was to be in the vicinity of $100 million plus. Main Roads Western Australia called for expressions of interest some time ago. From the expressions of interest, four pre-qualified companies were selected. They were: Leighton Constructions; Thiess Bros; Transfield and McMahon, as a joint venture; and Henry Walker Eltin. The specifications were for a design and construct tender. Several Western Australian owned companies were not selected, unfortunately. I am informed that Henry Walker Eltin threatened to withdraw from these tender bids unless Main Roads Western Australia considered its request to transfer the risk of native title issues associated with this project. Main Roads Western Australia denied this request, and I am informed that, as a result, Henry Walker Eltin withdrew from this project.No other appropriately pre-qualified company was then invited to fill the vacated fourth position on the short list. Filling this position on the short list had been done on previous occasions. As a result, Thiess, Leighton Holdings and the Transfield McMahon joint venture were the remaining companies in this tender bid. I am informed that Thiess is a wholly owned subsidiary of Leighton Holdings. I also understand that Leighton's has, for some time, expressed a willingness to acquire the Transfield Group. These sentiments are on the public record. It is also my understanding that Mr Ray Sputore, a very senior manager from Transfield, has recently joined Leighton's. The intricate and involved nature of these companies and their associations tends to raise the question of the potential for collusive tendering.My sources inform me that probity officers have informed Main Roads Western Australia in various ways that they have concerns about the integrity of the tendering process for this Tonkin Highway extension. I also understand that some members of the community consultative committee have expressed reservations and concerns for the probity of this project. In fact, my information is that the project is now some 20 per cent over the budget proposed by Main Roads Western Australia. The minister has announced that the expected cost for the Tonkin Highway extension stage 1 is now $140 million.A few days ago, on 6 December, the project was awarded to the Transfield McMahon joint venture. I am as enthusiastic as any other citizen of this region of Western Australia to see the Tonkin Highway extension proceed. It is necessary for road infrastructure for the southern metropolitan region and I heartily endorse its construction. However, the concerns and serious questions that I have raised need scrutiny and answers as significant public moneys are involved. This needs to be done before January 2003, when the contract is to be signed.1019319:39:0010193King, Catherine, MPMs KING00AMRBallaratALP00—This evening I would like to raise the issue of road accidents in the electorate of Ballarat; in particular, along the Western Highway. Since January this year, there have been 20 road deaths in the Ballarat region. I regret to inform the House that as recently as Monday night a man was killed on the Western Highway near Gordon and another is fighting for his life in the Royal Melbourne Hospital. This latest death is just another in a spate of accidents that have prematurely claimed the lives of people in the Ballarat region. The Ballarat Courier on Tuesday, 10 December led with the headline, `Road Carnage' and, unfortunately, this is correct. The newspaper article included mention of the death of a Melbourne man near Stall, a Trentham man near Ararat and two brothers in Scarsdale. However, these are by no means isolated incidents. The recent police accident and traffic commission reports reported that there have been 543 collisions in the Anthonys Cutting and western ring roads section of the Western Highway since 1998. There have been 14 people killed and 254 collisions resulting in serious injury. This is a disturbing statistic for such a small stretch of road. In the two years that these fatalities and collisions have occurred, the government has continued to stall on improvements to the Western Highway and has not implemented its promise to prioritise the Deer Park bypass. The government has not earmarked any further funding for this vital piece of road. The only indication of when work might start is when the Craigieburn bypass is finished. This timeline is totally inadequate. The only answer that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services have proposed is AusLink.For seven years this government has had the opportunity to make concrete commitments to the Deer Park bypass and all it can come up with is a proposal that shifts responsibility for the national highway onto state and local governments. Under the government's proposal, it attempts to pass the buck in terms of responsibility. We all agree that funding for roads needs to be allocated in a strategic way. Every time the federal or state governments approve funding for Roads of National Importance during elections or by-elections, the Deer Park bypass gets pushed further back on the agenda. All AusLink does is slip the Deer Park bypass back even further.The member for Burke and I have been fighting for the Deer Park bypass and major safety upgrades for the Western Highway since well before we were elected. This House should be aware that 11 councils along the Western Highway are working together and have formed the Western Highway Action Committee. The member for Burke and I met with a delegation from the committee last week, along with the shadow minister for transport. Regrettably, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services was unable to meet with them.In addition, this week we had the Victorian senator Judith Troeth—who claims to be the patron senator for Ballarat—making comments in the Ballarat media about how the new AusLink proposal will not disadvantage regional roads. The senator may not be aware, in fact, of where the Deer Park bypass is actually to be built. If the senator claims to be such a patron for Ballarat then perhaps she could advocate for the Ballarat community that the Deer Park bypass be built. What the senator needs to do is tell this to the people of Ballarat who, for over seven years, have heard the same excuses and denials from the Howard government. The people of Ballarat remember the promise that this road would be a priority which the Treasurer made during the 2001 federal election campaign. The people of Ballarat have the right to ask the government: when will this important bypass be built and when will the road carnage stop on the Western Highway?1019419:42:0010194Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—If only Scully, Mulder and the gang from TheX-Files had it so good. I am talking about the arrival of aliens in Australia. You might not be aware that, up until recently, people from overseas origins were registered as aliens entering Australia. Why this is significant is that last Friday I was pleased to be able to launch a Work for the Dole program which was the conclusion of stage 1 of the National Archives of Australia records, restoration and management project that has been undertaken in my electorate. Some of the noteworthy individuals who actually made an application to be an alien entering Australia, applications which were uncovered during this important Work for the Dole project, included Gregory Peck. He filled in one of these applications entitled, `Application for registration by alien entering Australia' early in the summer of 1959, just after the new year. He was coming to our community on the Mornington Peninsula to film On the Beach. He and his co-star did make some disparaging remarks about their experience—I guess they did not find the nicest part of the Dunkley community that I currently represent. Back in 1959, Frankston was a small seaside hamlet. It was a tourist destination, where this film was shot under the supervision of Stanley Kramer Productions. It brought some international celebrities to our shores. The Work for the Dole project involved actually taking these `alien entering Australia' registration forms and putting them onto a computer database. Not only do they represent part of the rich history of a locality such as ours—and provide such gripping information as the fact that Gregory Peck had a scar on his left palm—but they also give many people some insight into their family history.Within the National Archives of Australia is a wealth of information. The key issue is how to gain access to this wealth of information that family historians and those looking to know a little more about their communities wish to tap into. Through the Work for the Dole program and the excellent management and coordination by the community work coordinator Your Employment Solutions in the Dunkley electorate, we have managed to bring together some young and some not-so-young job seekers from our community to undertake this National Archives initiative.Rob McCarthy, the community work coordinator from Your Employment Solutions—or Barry Smith and Associates, as many would know—has been passionate about this project. With the cooperation of the National Archives of Australia, he has sought to use Work for the Dole not only to return something to the Australian community for those public funds that are invested in the program but also to give job seekers renewed hope, new skills and improved prospects of gaining employment. I was pleased on Friday to meet with Rob McCarthy and Carol Brickell, the project supervisor. I understand Carol, herself, is worth archiving—she is a legend who is thought to be very helpful and to be worth preserving so as to share her with all these Archive projects. Rob McCarthy and the team from the National Archives office said that Carol's energy, management and coordination of the project was central to its success.I know that National Archives are looking around other parts of Australia for a similar project. They have brought some of their people—Brian Pitcher, Jenni Davidson, Esther Carey and Mark Brennan—to Frankston to see how the project—involving Your Employment Solutions, with Carol Brickell as the project supervisor—was done in such a first-class manner. The really great news about Friday, though, was not just the launching of the first stage and recognising that there are subsequent stages to come—and seeing some of these richly historic applications from some celebrities of a number of generations ago—but that some of the Work for the Dole participants could not turn up for the ceremony. Why? Because they had gained a job. Three of the participants had gained employment and one had gone back to further studies. What was really enlightening for me was the enthusiasm and the optimism that was embodied in all of the participants of the Work for the Dole program.This particular National Archives of Australia project delivered something for our national history and has given a new resource to many people wishing to pursue their family histories but, more particularly, it has given the project participants added tools in their kitbag. They can go to employers with evidence of how they can work constructively in the workplace. They can demonstrate the new skills they have gained through information management, data input and workplace know-how, which are the kinds of things employers are looking for. Above all that, it has given them a new purpose, a new direction and a new understanding about the careers they wish to pursue.Work for the Dole is an outstanding success. It is delivering great benefits for my community, for the participants in it and for local projects such as this one of national significance. It is one of the many great initiatives the Howard government has introduced to make Australia a stronger and safer place, with better opportunities for all our citizens. (Time expired)1019619:48:0010196Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4LingiariALP00—Tonight I want to talk about the recently announced Northern Territory Australian of the Year, Dr Edward Joseph Egan AM, better known as Ted. Ted has an honorary doctorate from the Northern Territory University that was awarded only this year. Ted is a singer, songwriter, playwright, author, actor, television commentator, academic, linguist, bon vivant and yarn spinner.Ted has lived most of his life in the Northern Territory and presently lives in Alice Springs. I am pleased to say that, this year, I was privileged, along with many others, to attend weekend festivities at his house to celebrate his 70th birthday. He is a most worthy recipient of the award of Territorian Australian of the Year. He is a Territory and Australian icon. He is in every sense true blue and indeed a legend.Ted was born in Melbourne in 1932 and came to the Territory in search of adventure in 1949. And he got it. At first he lived at Belsen Camp, near St Mary's Catholic Church in Darwin, where he soon found himself kicking a football with the Tiwi people who were associated with the church. The then Bishop of Darwin, John O'Loughlin, asked Ted to form a football team, and Ted became the first captain of the mighty St Mary's Football Club, which is the most successful football club in the Northern Territory. Three years later, Ted was still captain when the club won the first of its many premierships.Ted's rapport with Indigenous Australians and his linguistic skills were noticed by the Territory's then Chief Minister, Paul Hasluck, who invited Ted to join the native affairs branch as a cadet patrol officer. Ted served in many remote places such as Borroloola and Groote Eylandt. In 1956, he successfully completed the course for patrol officer at the Australian School of Pacific Administration in Sydney.In 1957, Ted helped to establish Maningrida, a new community on the central Arnhem Land coast. In 1958, he was appointed superintendent of the welfare branch at Yuendumu. In 1960, Ted became one of the pioneers of the outstation movement to support Aborigines who wanted to live in decentralised places away from the main settlement. While at Yuendumu, Ted began studying for an arts degree through the Australian National University. He studied the hard way, by the light of a hurricane lamp.After four years at Yuendumu, Ted was appointed superintendent at Bagot Reserve in Darwin. Ted resolved to become a teacher and, after teacher training in Brisbane, was appointed to teach in schools at Newcastle Waters and Angurugu, on Groote Eylandt. In the late 1960s, Ted increasingly becoming disillusioned with official Indigenous policy and began writing protest songs such as Gurundji Blues, which was written in response to the attempts of the Yolngu people of Gove Peninsula to secure a voice in decisions about proposals to mine bauxite on their land.Encouraged by Nugget Coombs, Ted went to Canberra in 1970 to take up a position with the Council for Aboriginal Affairs, where he worked for several years, finally working in the newly formed Department of Aboriginal Affairs. In 1977 Ted left the Public Service to become a full-time entertainer. Ted has always been a keen listener to the stories and songs of the bush. His love of the people and the land and his ability to communicate have made Ted a favourite live entertainer, documentary maker and commentator on Northern Australia. Through song and story he tells of the lives of Territorians of all kinds. His work has expanded into books, films and television programs, and he has recorded 26 albums.In 1989, he won the Northern Territory history award for his project on the killings that occurred at Caledon Bay and Woodah in 1932. The work was successfully submitted as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts (History), awarded by the Flinders University, and was published as a book titled Justice all their own. Ted was a member of the first National Reconciliation Council. In 1991 he was appointed a member of the Order of Australia for services to the Indigenous community and for an ongoing contribution to the literary heritage of Australia through song and verse. Ted is an inaugural life member of the Australian Stockman's Hall of Fame, the Country Music Association of Australia, the Workers Heritage Centre at Barcaldine, the Waltzing Matilda Museum at Winton and the Drover's Camp at Camooweal.Ted is featured in the Hands of Fame and the Roll of Renown at the Tamworth Country Music Centre. With his partner Nerys Evans, Ted has been working since 1990 on a full length feature film The drover's boy, based on his award winning song. Finally, Ted is also a world champion Fosterphone player, an instrument which Ted has made his own. I congratulate Ted on all his achievements and wish him and Nerys all the best.1019719:52:0010197Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—On 19 August I received a very interesting letter from one of my constituents, Kathryn Brimblecombe-Fox. She is a new constituent in the electorate of Ryan, and I thought I would speak in parliament tonight on some of her wonderful achievements. It is also interesting to note that Kathryn's father was a member of the Australian parliament—he was the federal member for Maranoa for 16 years during the 1950s and 1960s. I am speaking about Kathryn because she is a very talented and unique individual in the electorate of Ryan. This year she staged her first solo exhibitions, both in Brisbane and in London, of landscape paintings which depict the Australian outback.Kathryn has spent more than 30 years living in the country, mostly in Goondiwindi. Her reflections of the Australian outback have been captured in the exhibition entitled Cut Lines, with a 14-metre long continuous landscape painting that was wrapped around the walls of Brisbane's Soapbox Gallery in August. I want to read into the parliamentary record her own description of her emotions when she thinks about painting, and her skills and talents. She says:When I paint I see, I feel and I sense. When I paint my landscapes I think about my childhood, my youth and my adulthood. The distance of time, space and memory become simultaneously far and close. I experience a felt sense of knowing and un-knowing as if past events cut through the future, creating the future, but defining and redefining the past. With reflection I sometimes see the past with new eyes. Thus the present and the future pose different possibilities.Kathryn grew up outside Dalby on a grain farm in the middle of black soil Pirrinuan plain. There were no trees there, except for those in her mother's large garden, and she describes that in her letter to me:Looking west there was nothing but the horizon, looking east were the Bunya Mountains. Mirages were everywhere tricking people with their watery shimmerings.As I said, she lived in Goondiwindi for 18 years. She describes this as follows:A different landscape of grey-green eucalyptus trees, red dust, clay soil and endless prickly plants stared back at me. Long drives along lonely highways, which I got to know too well, have left the landscape in my head.I am delighted to speak in the parliament about Kathryn's talents and skills. I think it is important that every member of this parliament who has residents in their electorate who are very talented and who make a contribution to our arts and culture should make sure the skills and contributions of those people are brought forward.Kathryn does not receive any financial support from the government; she does not receive any support whatsoever but does this all on her own. I think it is terrific that she took the initiative and made the time to write to me as her federal member; I am delighted she has done that. She was a student at the University of Queensland, where she read art history. She clearly has a love of the outback, but now that she is living in St Lucia, a very beautiful suburb in the electorate of Ryan, she feels right at home because it is a very green suburb.Kathryn was made a Year of the Outback Ambassador. This is a wonderful achievement, and her exhibitions this year in Brisbane and London coincided with this honour. I am delighted to be able to speak in the parliament about her achievements and her talent. I look forward to meeting her sometime in the new year. She is a very talented individual and I will help her promote her work throughout the constituency so that her fellow residents in Ryan know of her talents and skills and perhaps go and see her exhibitions. To have someone living in my electorate whose father was a member of this esteemed institution, this parliament, is a great delight. I look forward very much to introducing Kathryn to other people in Ryan who have a very strong appreciation of the arts and culture and who enjoy the work of talented people. I welcome her as a new resident of Ryan and look forward to making her acquaintance and promoting her work. I want to compliment her very strongly on being an outback ambassador for our country. She does wonderful work. (Time expired)1019819:57:0010198Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Tonight I call upon the government to commit to the continued funding of the very successful Cities for Climate Protection program under the Australian Greenhouse Office. The three municipalities in the electorate of Scullin—the City of Whittlesea, the City of Banyule and the Shire of Nillumbik—are three of the 162 local governments, representing 65.2 per cent of Australia's population, that have committed to this program. The campaign's current funding is set to end in June 2003 and is yet to be renewed. Cities for Climate Protection is a global movement; it is truly thinking global but acting locally, through local government authorities, to achieve sustainable results. I urge the government to ensure that there is continued funding for the Cities for Climate Protection program.1019819:58:0010198Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Mr Speaker, before the House closes tonight I would like to raise again the matter I raised with you in the Statements by Members debate on Monday. It relates to my question on notice No. 43 to the Treasurer—which has been sitting there since 13 February this year—about what percentage of taxation barristers and solicitors are paying in Australia.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—He will reply in due course.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—That has not been replied to, and it is a very serious question because the legal profession should be setting an example. I want to put on record that there are about 3,900 barristers in Australia. Many are paying no tax, most are paying very little tax, and many of them are actively participating in and promoting tax avoidance schemes. I noticed that the Assistant Treasurer put out a media release on 30 August this year saying that she was tackling people who were not paying their fair share of tax. Nothing appears to be happening. This is a scandalous situation, and the people of Australia want to know what the government is doing to ensure that the legal profession pay their fair share of tax. They, more than anyone, should be setting an example to the rest of the community. I want to know why Treasurer Costello is not answering this serious question and dealing with tax avoidance. The Treasurer was talking about tax avoidance in question time today. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Time's up!10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Parliamentary Secretary! The member may continue.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a very serious issue, because we all should be paying our fair share of tax and the legal profession, more than any other, should be doing their bit to ensure they make their contribution.10000SPEAKER, TheThe SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:0010198House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices10198The following notices were given:CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello to present a bill for an act relating to insurance cover for terrorist acts, and to other matters.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock to present a bill for an act to amend the Migration Act 1958, and for other purposes.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995, and for related purposes.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to agriculture, fisheries and forestry, and for related purposes. GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to agricultural and veterinary chemicals, and for related purposes.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss to present a bill for an act to amend the Wheat Marketing Act 1989, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to make provision in relation to medical indemnity cover for health care professionals, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to make amendments consequential on the Medical Indemnity (Prudential Supervision and Product Standards) Act 2002, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to superannuation, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to corporations, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the Customs Act 1901 and the Passenger Movement Charge Collection Act 1978, 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: Site remediation and construction of infrastructure for the Defence site at Randwick, NSW.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to move:That standing order 48A (adjournment and next meeting) and standing order 103 (new business) be suspended for this sitting.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr Baird to move:That this House: (1) takes note of recent progress towards a Free Trade Agreement with the United States of America; (2) welcomes the increased opportunities the agreement will bring to Australia and Australian producers; (3) congratulates the Government on the significant achievement of bringing this initiative closer to reality; and (4) continues to place priority on working to negotiate free trade agreements that complement the work of the WTO and APEC.2002-12-11—————The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 9.52 a.m.Statements by Members102001020009:52:0010200Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—Two years ago last Friday, I held a rally outside the Wanniassa branch of the Commonwealth Bank in my electorate because the bank had announced that it was going to close that branch, which it subsequently did three weeks later. The good thing that came out of that rally was that it became the impetus for the community in my electorate to consider very seriously having an alternative to one of the big banks. Out of that rally came a move to establish a community bank. You can imagine my absolute joy last Friday—two years to the day since that rally—when the first community bank in Canberra opened at the shopping centre at Calwell. Another community bank will open in the next few weeks, and it will be in Wanniassa where the closure occurred two years ago.Many members in this place have stood up over the last couple of years and talked about community banks opening in their electorates, and I now understand why they have been so excited about it. It is a fantastic initiative. I commend all the people in Canberra involved in Tuggeranong Valley Financial Services, which has now been set up as a company to organise and run the Calwell Community Bank. In particular, I commend Michael Lindfield, who is on the board and who was the chair of the original steering committee, as well as all his colleagues—far too many to name. However, I want to pay tribute particularly to Michael and to Ron Kingsbury, who is now also on the board of the community bank. A wonderful celebration was held at Calwell last week with the opening of this exciting new venture. Entertainment was provided by Calwell High School, Calwell Primary School and other community groups who had come together to celebrate this fantastic initiative. Mr Russell Jenkins represented the Bendigo Bank. He is from the community and business banking solutions sector of the Bendigo Bank, which is obviously connected to this new initiative. I know that the community in the Tuggeranong Valley is also very much looking forward to the opening of the Wanniassa branch, which will be the second community bank branch in Canberra. That will be operative within the next two to three weeks, or in early January at the latest. Maria Porreca also played a very big role. I have seen Maria sitting behind a table in the shopping centre many times over the last two years garnering support and shareholders for this initiative. People like Michael Lindfield, Maria Porreca, Mike Crozier, Rob Yeomans, Hugh Charlmers, George Kelly and many others were involved in this wonderful initiative. This is something which I am very pleased to bring to the attention of the House. What a joy it is, instead of rallying outside a bank because it is closing, to be rallying outside a bank because it is opening. I wish the Calwell Community Bank great success in the future. (Time expired)1020009:55:0010200Panopoulos, Sophie, MPMs PANOPOULOS00AMUIndiLP10—I rise this morning in defence of the Royal Australian Navy against the latest rantings and ravings of a member of the Labor Party. I refer to the member for Corio, who yesterday in his disgraceful remarks labelled our great Navy as `McHale's Navy'. I share the disgust of many constituents from my electorate who contacted me yesterday and this morning who have sons and daughters serving in the Australian Navy over in the Gulf and in other parts of the world, protecting Australia's interests and doing their job for their country. Perhaps this is no surprise. The Labor Party always pretend to support great Australian symbols and great Australian government policies—just as at the last election they pretended to be tough on border protection. But the Australian people knew that that was a great furphy and that the Labor Party, with the likes of Carmen Lawrence, could never at the end of the day be genuinely tough on border protection. When the Labor Party say that they care about our defence forces and want to build them up to a level that is acceptable to the Australian people, the Australian people out there know that, once again, the Labor Party are not serious and can never be genuine about this issue because they do not like our defence forces—just as they do not like that great Australian document, the Australian Constitution. They mock our serving men and women. They mock our Australian Navy.I call on the member for Corio to apologise to the Australian men and women who are serving in our great Navy. Perhaps it is rather prophetic that the member for Corio, in his previous life, was a singer and guitarist with the Fabulous Rock Bottoms. May I respectfully suggest that with his latest disgraceful comments he has reached a very unfabulous and very embarrassing political rock bottom. He should apologise, stop being smarmy and a spiv, sitting there on the front bench of the Labor Party mocking great Australians and great Australian institutions. We know, and most Australians know, that the Labor Party will never be serious on border protection or building up the defence forces to the level that this country naturally deserves.1020109:57:0010201Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Today I lodged the following petitions for presentation to the House: from 718 citizens of the state of Queensland, a petition to overturn a decision by education minister Brendan Nelson to terminate funding for the teaching of Asian languages in Australian schools; from 545 residents of the state of Queensland, a petition on the crisis of medical indemnity insurance and bulk-billing; and, from more than 2,000 residents of the state of Queensland, a petition in relation to the provision of hearing services to the hearing impaired in my state.When it comes to these important questions, it is essential that the people of our communities be given the right to reflect their views directly into the parliament—hence the value of petitions. The petition which deals with the decision by Brendan Nelson, the education minister, to terminate funding for the teaching of Asian languages in Australian schools goes to the heart of the teaching program for those languages in all of the schools in my electorate on Brisbane's south side.On the question of bulk-billing, we recently established that the number of bulk-billing outlets in my electorate had gone from 36 down to 26, consistent broadly with the national pattern of collapse in bulk-billing services, which have gone down by 10 per cent across the nation during the life of the Howard government. In the last eight months alone, there has been a further five per cent drop. There is a crisis in bulk-billing in the part of Brisbane that I represent in this parliament and, beyond that, across the country as well.As far as cochlear hearing services are concerned, in June I was joined by my colleagues the members for Watson and Lowe and by others elsewhere in the parliament in a parliamentary debate urging the federal health minister to make a long-term commitment to children with cochlear implants and to give this matter the highest priority. These petitioners wish to see that action occur and occur now. Hence, we have more than 2,000 petitioners registering their views with this parliament identifying what action is now appropriate. I commend these petitions to the attention of the parliament. When it comes to how we take these matters forward, I would also like to add some points on the problem with cochlear hearing services. About 2,000 Australians, approximately 50 per cent of them children, have been fitted with bionic ears and now face an agonising wait until the decision is made by the government as to how the funding of these services will be handled in the future. I find it somewhat absurd that we have the latest technology at our disposal—cochlear implants being an Australian invention—yet the federal government does not see fit to provide people with access to these devices. Across the country more than 1.8 million people are hearing impaired, and of those approximately 72,000 are profoundly deaf. In my electorate of Griffith, many hearing impaired residents are directly affected by what the Howard government does in terms of subsidising the funding of hearing aids and speech processors. I commend these petitions to the House.The petitions read as follows—To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives:We the undersigned people of Brisbane's Southside wish to draw to the attention of the House:The crisis facing the Australian Medical Profession because of the unresolved national crisis in medical indemnity insurance;That medical practitioners are being forced to work under the strains of escalating insurance premiums, causing many to fear for the future financial viability of their practices.The national medical indemnity crisis is potentially endangering the health of residents on Brisbane's Southside because of the impact on the local medical profession.The Howard government's response to this crisis to date has been short term and thus far does not demonstrate a long term basis for the restoration of confidence in the medical profession, and;The further impact of this unresolved medical insurance crisis on the ability of General Practitioners on Brisbane's Southside to continue to be able to afford the provision of bulk billing services to our local community.We call upon the House to inform the Prime Minister of this community's deep concerns and of the need for the Prime Minister to develop as a matter of the highest priority a financially viable, long term solution to this ongoing crisis of confidence and care within the medical profession.from 278 citizens.To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.Students, parents, teachers, and Australian business-people draw to the attention of the House the major damage the termination of the National Asian Languages and Studies Strategy for Australian Schools (NALSAS) will have on Australia's future.This program is vital to the educational and economic interests of our nation.Moreover, its unnecessary termination will further jeopardise Australia's standing in Asia.Your petitioners request that the House call on the Education Minister to reverse his decision and to continue funding this valued investment in Australia's long-term national interest. from 718 citizens.(Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—It may suit the convenience of the Main Committee for the chair to be a little bit flexible. Without setting a precedent, I call the honourable member for Ryan.1020310:01:0010203Johnson, Michael, MPMr JOHNSON00AMXRyanLP10—I am delighted to rise in the parliament today and speak about the 2002 Ryan schools Christmas card competition, which I launched earlier this year and had the pleasure to present the winning students at Fig Tree Pocket School in my wonderful electorate of Ryan. The competition was initiated in the electorate so that I could reach out to young people, particularly to school students, and encourage them to get involved in the community and to become more active young people early in their lives.I was delighted with the tremendous number of responses I received. There were many colourful and imaginative entries in this inaugural Ryan schools Christmas card competition. I was very pleased that 10-year-old Harry Robinson from Fig Tree Pocket was the winner. I was very delighted to go to the school and present him with a terrific certificate and a prize for his festive and colourful depiction of Indooroopilly bridge, the Walter Taylor Bridge, which is a tremendous landmark in my electorate. Harry's winning design is the feature of my greetings card to community groups and fellow colleagues in this parliament. I will be sending those out in the days ahead. I want to thank Harry for participating in this competition. It is terrific that he got involved. I also had the great pleasure of meeting his mother, Melissa, who attended the presentation ceremony, along with the parents of many of the other school kids present.I am pleased that Fig Tree Pocket State School encouraged their children to get involved. It is a wonderful idea and a wonderful competition. It has not been done before in the electorate of Ryan; it is the first time in five decades that the local federal member has initiated such a competition. I also want to pay tribute to the grade 4 teachers of the school who were very active in communicating this idea to their kids. Helen Purcey and Rowena Tate were two teachers that were very encouraging of the students to get involved. I am delighted to compliment them very warmly in the parliament.I also want to thank the principal of the school, Jenny McIntyre, for inviting us to the school to make the presentation. We also had a lovely morning tea afterwards with all the students, teachers and also many of the parents who visited the school and stayed back. It was a great opportunity for me to personally meet some of these young kids of my electorate who make a wonderful contribution and who will be the leaders of our country in the future.It is very important that members of this parliament get involved in the schools of their electorate. I am sure that many do and I know that my senior colleague alongside me, the member for Gilmore, is a member who promotes contact with the young people of her electorate. I want to take this opportunity to compliment the school. I will be launching the initiative again next year and I encourage all the students of the schools to get involved. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—The chair, using a very uncalibrated sundial, ascertains that it is approximately 10 a.m. and, in accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. The chair emphasises that the events of this morning are not a precedent. Bills10204R169210204Debate resumed from 4 December, on motion by Mr Anthony:That this bill be now read a second time.10:05:0010204Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—With some difficulty I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (People Smuggling, Firearms Trafficking and Other Measures) Bill 2002. The bill before the Main Committee deals with various issues relating to, in particular, people-smuggling. Under `Division 73—People smuggling and related offences', 73.1 defines the `Offence of people smuggling'; 73.2 defines the `Aggravated offence of people smuggling (exploitation etc.)'; and 73.3 defines the `Aggravated offence of people smuggling (at least 5 people)'.The member for Blaxland has just joined us. He will be able to add to the Committee's deliberations and speak on the various issues in the bill in much greater detail than me.10:06:0010204Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for holding the fort and give concurrent apologies for the member for Banks, who is delayed elsewhere. That means that, substantively, I am up first in relation to this very significant Crimes Legislation Amendment (People Smuggling, Firearms Trafficking and Other Measures) Bill 2002 we have before us today. However, you would not think it was too significant if you looked at the list of speakers in relation to this bill: for the opposition there is me and the shadow minister for justice and customs, the member for Banks, Daryl Melham, but only one speaker for the government on the other side.On the core issues of the changes to the criminal law made by this bill, I will defer to the professional ability of our shadow minister, who is not only professional in his approach as a shadow minister but has a long and serried career as a public defender at the New South Wales Bar. The depth and scope of his knowledge is shown by just how well prepared he is and indeed how well the opposition has been prepared—with the shadow minister working in conjunction with Senator Faulkner and with other members of the opposition—in putting together Labor's policy in this area and a range of other areas associated with the Criminal Code and the changes that the government has sought to make.This bill makes a number of changes, to some effect. On my reading of the changes in terms of people-smuggling—primitive though that reading may be, not being legally trained—the effect is the same kind of effect we have with other Commonwealth legislation, in particular those offences where Australians overseas on holiday participate in acts which we would find jailable in Australia. We have extended Australian law to have effect throughout Asia and, indeed, the rest of world, but particularly in areas of Asia in relation to sex offences with under-age people. The effect of those laws is to say that the reach of Australian law is normally encompassed by the borders of our nation but there are particular cases so significant that we need to reach beyond our borders in order to hold to account those people who are transgressing against local laws, particularly in a number of Asian jurisdictions. With the cooperation of those jurisdictions, we have put these laws into place. That extension of Australian law is to bring to justice Australians who are perpetrating illegal acts overseas. It is also to assist foreign jurisdictions in their attempts to clean up the illegality they face—and we have seen a number of examples in the past in the illegal sex trade in a number of Asian countries where Australia's intervention and the legal changes we have made have been extraordinarily welcome.Does this bill operate in a similar way? If I am correct, it inserts new provisions into the Criminal Code to criminalise further aspects of people-smuggling. One, we know that our laws are against people-smuggling; two, what is the particular element here? This element is dealing with Australian citizens who organise or participate in the act of people-smuggling. It does not cover overseas people smugglers at all; it covers Australians if they participate in illegal sex acts or sex trade overseas. Here it is transferred to the question of people-smuggling. The new provision in the Criminal Code Act 1995 criminalises:... the smuggling of persons from Australia to another country, or from a country other than Australia to a third country, with or without transit through AustraliaLet us look at that. Firstly, it says `from Australia', our jurisdiction, `to another country' anywhere in the world, so it could be Finland or Iceland. It most probably would not be either of those two countries or any of the other 180 or so that we have. Secondly, it says `from a country other than Australia to a third country'—for instance, if people attempted to smuggle people from the United States to Sri Lanka, that would be covered by this bill. We know the movement generally is not from any advanced Western industrialised country to countries that are poorer and more dependent or Third World countries. It is generally going to be from countries where there is an economic incentive to get out of that context and go to a richer country. People smugglers say, `You get entry into this country and you will get everything that you want—jobs, pensions or whatever else.'Thirdly, it says `with or without transit through Australia'. Why is that provision encompassed within this bill? You have to make a necessary or a contingent connection to Australia. If you are dealing with people being smuggled from Australia or with people being taken from one country to a second country outside Australia, this needs to encompass the fact that they might be routed through Australia either by boat or more likely by plane. Alternatively, Australia may not be involved at all. This condition might not be seen as necessary where Australia is not involved at all. Two countries may have no necessary association. However, if people were coming from Iceland through Australia to Fiji, as unlikely as that might seem, it needs to be covered in this bill. Further, the explanatory memorandum and the notes provided by the shadow minister, the member for Banks, indicate that:... the offences will apply where the person who organised or facilitated the smuggling either engaged in that conduct in Australia or is an Australian citizen or resident.Here the reach is similar. We are dealing with Australian citizens perpetrating acts of organising or assisting in people-smuggling. Wherever they are—in Australia in our normal jurisdiction or in overseas jurisdictions—they will be held to account. There is a penalty of $110,000 or 10 years in jail. Further, a case of aggravated people-smuggling is 20 years imprisonment or a fine of $220,000. There is a series of cases where it is a question of that being aggravated. I might go to that shortly but I will divert for a moment.This bill covers a range of things. In some ways it is a grab bag because it covers people-smuggling, the question of importing guns, cross-border firearms trafficking and a series of other attendant measures. People-smuggling and firearms trafficking issues are not foreign to my electorate of Blaxland, which is in the dead centre of Sydney, the area that is most impacted by immigration, by activities involving people-smuggling and by cross-border trafficking of arms. Over a long period we have seen a change not only in the way in which the people in Blaxland live but also in the character of the area. One issue here that might be seen as political—it is a fairly heavy and important issue—is the fact that, if there is no control of your borders and of who comes to Australia in government programs 10, 20 or 30 years down the track, the quality of life and communal living in your area can be destroyed. There is fear and loathing on the streets of Bankstown because of what the Fraser government did in the late 1970s, when more than 14,000 people were introduced into Australia with no criminal checking as to crimes that had been committed in their country of origin or their association—no departmental activity at all. This was a privatised operation. One travel agent was given the job of organising the mass exodus of more than 14,000 people from Lebanon—from the war in Lebanon—to Australia. That was sanctioned by the Fraser government. They simply told the departments to stand aside.00AMVHunt, Gregory, MPMr Hunt—Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask whether the member for Blaxland would give way very briefly to answer two questions.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—No, not in this case. This matter is too important. All of the publicity that we have seen over the last 1½ years to two years—running back four years—about problems in Bankstown can in part be traced back to the fact that there were no proper controls by the Australian government, which should have put those controls in place. This coalition government is attempting to control people smugglers.The people in my electorate have to live with the consequences of the late 1970s. Twenty-eight people involved in the Telopea Street gang in Bankstown have gone to jail. They controlled gun-running in Bankstown. They sold hand guns and automatic weapons and controlled the heroin and associated drug trades in the city of Bankstown. Thankfully, our police force, under Bob Carr's state government, has pursued those people to the point where they have been put into jail—where they properly should be. Those people attempted to do a range of things that endangered normal community life: they decided to shoot up the Lakemba police station and to bomb the Bankstown police station. They had no regard for Australian law or for the normal civilities operative in the city of Bankstown or anywhere else. They presented themselves as criminal in mind and activity and were not afraid to take on our police forces.When we look at the issues of people-smuggling and government control of our borders, we should look to the great untold story in Australian immigration and see what happened in 1975-76 and thereafter when the Fraser government abrogated its responsibilities to protect Australia's borders and citizenry because it did not check the criminal backgrounds of people who came to Australia. On behalf of the people of Bankstown and Blaxland and all of those in my community who, for a long time, have found it difficult to hold their heads up because of the bad publicity that came about because of a small section of that community, I urge this government to take its responsibilities very seriously.Since the time I adopted an attendant role, working for the former member for Blaxland in his electorate office, and since being elected to this parliament on 15 June 1996, I have sought to have policies on immigration and border control fashioned in as tough a way as possible. When you come from an area that has absorbed large numbers in postwar migration and, since then, great influxes of people, continuing right through to now, you have to protect and stand up for those in your area. When governments of whatever flavour decide to operate immigration programs that impact on your area, its character, its people and their safety, you had better be sure that you are standing up for them and not for some misguided pristine principle delivered by those in leafier parts of Australia—whether the North Shore of Sydney, dominated by Liberal electorates, the cosy parts of lower Tasmania, Perth or anywhere else. In an electorate with such a high concentration of people from migrant backgrounds, the expectation in the past from the very uninformed media, from the very uninformed commentators, has been that in those areas former migrants would be very supportive of immigration; the fact is that they are not. If you understand the character of the area and of the impacts on these people, you can understand that the cross-border firearms trafficking regulations, operating here in this bill today, are important for the City of Bankstown. Such regulations might not be so important to Woollahra or Harbord, but they are dramatically important to the City of Bankstown. Blood has flowed in our streets because of people who have chosen to deal and traffic in illegal hand guns. People have had access to a whole container load of Glock pistols, which were meant for the New South Wales Police; they were sold in the streets of Bankstown. Luckily, those who were responsible were apprehended by the state police and incarcerated, as they should have been. But the shadow minister and I well know—as both our electorates encompass parts of the City of Bankstown—that, unless you stand up for the people in your electorate, as we both have, and fight within your party, whether in opposition or in government, the necessary strictures of the law will not protect them. At other times and in other places, I will probably come back to the great untold story of what the Fraser government did not only to the people of Sydney but to the people of Australia by perpetrating totally uncontrolled access to Australia—no border control and no oversight of the criminality or otherwise of people coming into Australia, with dramatic consequences.There is a message there to this government, given that when running its election campaign and since coming to government in 1996 it distorted the record in terms of what Labor was about. For the four years of the Keating prime ministership, Australia had its lowest migrant intake in this country's history of immigration. Why? The then Prime Minister recognised—and I am glad that I put my job on the line to argue the case—that, in a recession, it is no use talking to people who do Economics 1 who say, `We need to create greater demand,' when the demand created is that on the Commonwealth for public housing and for other Commonwealth benefits. You really should concentrate on people in the City of Bankstown and electorates like Blaxland. Those people are doing it hard, looking to retrain and looking to get back into the work force as soon as possible. You need a different approach to Australian immigration. You need a different approach to how you moderate that program during a recession. The awareness of what the real impacts are from a recession informed that decision, and that was to Australia's and the electors' benefit. The story told by those opposite is entirely contrary.Throughout its period in government, Labor had a tough and concerted program in relation to people-smuggling and immigration. Liberals, over a 10- to 15-year period, sought to blackguard the government's name. They argued that there was no control and that Labor was soft in this area, with John Laws, Alan Jones and a tribe of radio commentators pouring battery acid on the Labor voters of Western Sydney—and to effect. The one great problem from my point of view and my party's point of view is that neither Paul Keating as a Prime Minister nor our Labor ministers at the time adequately explained just how tough we were in this area. As tough as our economic policy was, particularly from 1985-86 on, there was an absolute conjunction in terms of Labor's running of immigration. Why? Because in our electorates immigration policy matters. Our electorates are the ones that feel the brunt of it. That is why Bob Carr, as Premier of New South Wales, talks so openly about the importance of control of the immigration program and why he talks so openly about the necessity to moderate the effects and to deal effectively with people-smuggling. During Labor's period in government 3,000 people were smuggled into Australia. When this government totally lost control of the situation and did not protect Australia's borders at all, 11,500 people were smuggled into Australia in 2½ years. They completely lost the plot. They were saved by the Tampa and the way in which the government presented that incident. The Tampa saved them from the accusation—directly pointed at them and buried home, deep into their political heart—that they, irresponsibly, had not put together an adequate program of border control and that they, irresponsibly, had not done what we did in government. We had a program, which cost us in the order of $1 million, to take 3,000 people who were mostly from Fujian Province in southern China. There was a problem with some of the Vietnamese people in Hong Kong, but that was a different matter which was solved globally. In terms of those people from southern China, through negotiation with the Chinese government and intergovernmental cooperation, Australia's borders and Australia's immigration program were protected.This government was re-elected on the basis of a distortion of history. The story of recent and past history has not properly been told. People-smuggling needs to be stopped and this legislation is a good step towards that and towards dealing with Australian citizens who are involved in people-smuggling either onshore or offshore. But the history of the Liberal Party's incapacity to deal with this question has not been told. It should be told and it will be. (Time expired)10:26:0010208Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (People Smuggling, Firearms Trafficking and Other Measures) Bill 2002. This bill deals with some of the negative consequences of globalisation. Globalisation offers extraordinary benefits but it brings with it great challenges. There are seven great challenges as we see them: maintaining growth, widespread care and protection of health and nutrition, challenges facing the environment, overcoming disparity, protecting the rights of individuals, maintaining identity and—last but not least—maintaining security. That is classically state security, but there is also a wave of non-state action which poses a new security threat of a type we have not previously faced. This bill addresses those threats squarely and directly.This bill falls within the context of accepting that there is some notion of extraterritoriality in terms of our responsibility for the actions of our own citizens. It builds upon the work of an earlier legislative step, the Crimes (Child Sex Tourism) Act, which says that there are certain actions which, taken by Australian citizens—no matter where they occur in the world—are utterly repugnant to, in conflict with and in violation of the most basic of Australian values. In that context, I am delighted to support the provisions within this bill.Essentially the provisions fall within two categories. The first is to punish all of those people who are of Australian citizenship who participate in or who help organise, construct and bring about people-smuggling wherever it occurs. That is an action which we find repugnant and, where Australians are involved, they will be punished. That is the action which is taken within this bill. It is simple, clear and absolute. The second category in the bill is to clamp down on firearms smuggling, wherever it occurs, involving Australians. It is clear, unequivocal and absolute. I wish to speak only briefly to support those two elements of this bill and to say that this bill occurs within the context of a new wave of global security threat: actions taken through non-state actors which relate to terrorism, international transport or crime. These actions present a threat to Australia, and to countries throughout the world, which has not been seen before. They are a consequence of a globalised society—a society which brings enormous benefits and possibilities but also new challenges. Very simply, I am delighted to support these strong actions taken in relation to transnational crime with regard to people-smuggling and firearms traffic, and I commend this bill to the House.10:30:0010209Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—At the outset I apologise to members of the Main Committee and my colleagues, particularly the Chief Opposition Whip, Mrs Crosio, and Joan for being delayed when this debate on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (People Smuggling, Firearms Trafficking and Other Measures) Bill 2002 commenced. I miscalculated the time; I should have been here at 10 o'clock. I was representing the opposition at an official opening of the Australian Federal Police's National Security Coordination Centre. I thought it was important that I should be there to send the message as the minister, Senator the Hon. Chris Ellison, was opening the coordination centre at Federal Police headquarters. I was delayed because I was given an inspection of the facility. It is a wonderful new facility. There is no doubt that the facility will enhance our ability to deal with people-smuggling, which is relevant to this bill. There was a direct link to the unit that was in Bali. I was impressed by the facility, and time got away from me as I was being shown around it. It is important to say at the outset that on these matters the opposition is at one with the government. These issues should not be politicised. We will have our differences of opinion in relation to their implementation. I have attempted to demonstrate in this portfolio that as far as these matters are concerned the opposition is ready, willing and able to offer cross-party support, bipartisan support, but there are certain principles we do not want to resile from. A number of bills have come before the House and the Senate and have been subject to a public scrutiny process. They have been enriched by that process and we have ended up with a better outcome. Again, I apologise for being delayed. I congratulate everyone involved with the security coordination centre. Interestingly, the concept was not developed post-Bali but pre-Bali. It has been around for over 12 months. We are certainly going to be better equipped to deal with what are new and frightening issues, in some respects, but issues that have to be dealt with properly. The bill before the House inserts new provisions into the Criminal Code Act of 1995 that make it a criminal offence to engage in people-smuggling. It will be an offence to smuggle persons from Australia to another country or from a country other than Australia to a third country with or without transit through Australia. Where there is no transit through Australia, the offences will apply where the person who organised or facilitated the smuggling either engaged in that conduct in Australia or is an Australian citizen or resident. The penalty is imprisonment for 10 years or a fine of $110,000, or both prison and a fine. Offences of aggravated people-smuggling will attract high penalties of 20 years imprisonment or a fine of $220,000, or both. There are several circumstances that amount to aggravated people-smuggling. These include endangering the lives or safety of the people being smuggled, subjecting the people being smuggled to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, smuggling five or more people at one time, or smuggling with an intention that the person will be exploited in a foreign country. Such exploitation includes slavery, sexual servitude, forced labour and the removal of a person's organs. The bill also makes it an offence to make, provide or possess false travel or identity documents intended for use in securing the unlawful entry of a person into a foreign country. The people-smuggling offences and all but one of the associated document offences are based on an international protocol to which Australia is a signatory. Labor supports this bill and its new offences in regard to people-smuggling. Labor supports the bill because people-smuggling is a repulsive trade that preys on the plight and misery of poor communities and it ought to be condemned. Labor wants to ensure that people smugglers face criminal charges in Australia for their offences. Although Labor supports the creation of these new offences, the reality is that criminal law alone will not stop the trade in human cargo. We also need effective policing of our coastline, and that is why Labor has proposed an Australian coastguard that would be a truly effective border protection force. The existing structure of border protection, surveillance and enforcement is flawed. Australia urgently needs to develop a more effective, efficient and sustainable way to protect our borders. The basic organisational structure is weak and other aspects of government policy further distort its effectiveness.Labor's coastguard will have three purpose-built, 80-metre offshore patrol boats. Unlike the Navy's patrol boats, coastguard vessels will have the range to protect Australia's Indian Ocean territories. Coastguard personnel will be trained and will specialise in the maritime policing role. Australian coastguard personnel will also be posted on Navy and Customs vessels carrying out surveillance, with an interdiction to perform the maritime policing functions. A nationwide network of coastguard volunteers will be established to support coastal surveillance with information on movement patterns and unusual activity on our borders. Commercial and recreational fishing vessel owners and other operators will be given incentives and opportunities to participate. A new intelligence capability will be established. The coastguard will be able to direct the border protection intelligence effort and it will be fully integrated into our national intelligence, defence and surveillance network.When it comes to problems such as people-smuggling, prevention is also better than cure. That is why we must work cooperatively with our neighbours to tackle people-smuggling. Labor is committed to an Australia that is comprehensively engaged with its neighbours and engaged with its region. My colleague the member for Griffith recently detailed Labor's commitment to comprehensive engagement within our region. The need for engagement with our neighbours is based on the very simple proposition that if we have good relations with them it is good for our security interests and it is good for our economic interests.Another aspect of people-smuggling that troubles me is the government's track record in failing to tell us the truth about the trade in human cargo. The government failed to tell the Australian people the complete truth about the `children overboard' affair. They failed to give the full details of the cost impacts of the so-called Pacific solution. They failed to tell us the full story of the SIEV X affair and to disclose details of the so-called disruption activities undertaken in Indonesia. Yesterday, in Sydney, a report was released by Human Rights Watch, an international monitoring agency based in New York. The report was based on interviews with people who were on boats turned away by the Royal Australian Navy. That report contains some serious allegations. In fact, those allegations were also raised at a recent Senate inquiry; however, that inquiry could not collect testimony from the asylum seekers involved. We still need to deal with the allegations that were made again yesterday. There is no need to lie to protect our borders. That is why Labor has led the way in seeking to drag the truth from a reluctant government. Labor has continued to campaign to hold the government to account, and yesterday Labor successfully moved a motion in the Senate calling on the government to institute an independent judicial inquiry into the government's people-smuggling disruption program, including the circumstances of the loss of the SIEV X. In a news release on 5 December, the Minister for Justice and Customs was triumphant when he spoke about this bill. He said:The broad coverage of these new offences clearly demonstrates that Australia is committed not only to combating the illegal smuggling of people into Australia, but also people smuggling in the region. People smuggling is a global issue and a lucrative illicit trade. It is hoped that these offences will not only assist in the battle against people smuggling, but will also encourage other regional countries to adopt similar offences.These are strong words from the government, but the inquiry demanded by the Senate yesterday would help to shed some light on the government's action on people-smuggling. That is why Labor will continue to campaign for the truth.I now want to turn briefly to other aspects of the bill. This bill also creates two new offences of cross-border trafficking in firearms. It seeks to regulate the unlawful disposal or acquisition of a firearm where that activity occurs in the context of interstate trade or commerce. The offences rely on existing state and territory offences governing the disposal and acquisition of a firearm. The first offence makes it unlawful in the course of trade and commerce between the states and territories to dispose of or acquire a firearm where the disposal or acquisition of that firearm is an offence under a state or territory law. A related provision makes it an offence to take or send a firearm from one state or territory to another intending that the firearm will be disposed of in the other state or territory in circumstances that would constitute an offence against the firearm law of that other state or territory. The maximum penalty for both offences is 10 years imprisonment or a fine of $275,000, or both. Labor supports these new provisions. However, once again I must highlight that the new offences do not tackle the main source of illegal firearms in the Australian community. The reality is that firearms are flowing into Australia across our porous borders. The Minister for Justice and Customs knows that. He knows that fewer than one in a hundred sea containers is checked on arrival at Australian ports. Inside those sea containers may be guns or gun parts that are assembled later in Australia.There are other provisions in this bill that are detailed in the explanatory memorandum and that make minor amendments to existing criminal law. These include several minor amendments to the theft and fraud offences in the Criminal Code which have now been in operation for over a year. Department officers informed me in a briefing that the Director of Public Prosecutions had suggested some of the changes and that concerns were largely related to unsatisfactory earlier drafting which had created ambiguous and confusing provisions. The bill amends the Crimes Act 1914 so that courts will no longer have to take into account whether or not remissions are available in a state or territory when sentencing federal offenders. Most states and territories have abolished remissions, and the rest have signalled that they will follow shortly. The amendments will apply only to a sentence imposed after the commencement of the new provisions. The bill will also include the drug most commonly known as `fantasy', a psychotropic substance under the Crimes (Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) Act 1990. I am advised that this drug is often used to spike drinks. I would not know, because I have not personally used it. I enjoy orange juice, soda water and mineral water. I am not speaking from experience here, but I take the word of those who advise me.The bill also amends the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 to ensure that remittance dealers are included in the definition of cash dealer in the act. A technical amendment is also proposed to correct the cross-reference to the Commonwealth money-laundering legislation following the passage of new money-laundering offences earlier this year. Finally, the bill amends the International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997. These amendments will clearly define the role of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs while ensuring that the Attorney-General and the immigration minister consult on the eligibility of prisoners prior to their transfer. The amendments will also ensure that the immigration minister is given the opportunity to consider cancelling a prisoner's citizenship or visa prior to their transfer to Australia. The minister already holds this power; the amendments merely clarify that he or she should be consulted. If the immigration minister does cancel a prisoner's citizenship or visa, that person is no longer eligible for transfer to Australia. As I said, Labor supports this bill and will assist the government in its expedited passage through the Senate, notwithstanding the fact that there are only a couple of sitting days left. We believe that the measures in this bill deserve support so that they are expedited through the parliament. That shows that the Labor Party will treat these bills on their merits and, where there is merit in them, will cooperate with the government. We are not about scoring cheap political points. We are about actually sending a signal in relation to these bills that they have cross-party support. That is very important for the agencies. But, as I said earlier, there is a line on some legislation that the Labor Party will not cross. There is a debate in the Senate at the moment in relation to amendments to ASIO. The Labor Party have come up with an alternative model. As the legislation is being debated in the Senate, the Labor Party's amendments, with the support of the Democrats and the Greens, are producing a bill that the whole of the parliament should be able to live with. That will give the government and the agencies what they want in principle but in a different way that protects non-suspects. The terrorism bills that went through this House went through with amendments from parliamentary committees. It was the Labor Party who suggested that we maintain the UN process of proscription that saw an organisation outlawed. Such an organisation is to be held to account in relation to the Bali bombings, and the law creates a criminal offence.There is also the second limb in relation to going to the criminal courts to outlaw terrorist organisations. That got the balance right. It did not go after innocent citizens. Frankly, we need to be careful in the climate that is around at the moment that we do not proceed too hastily and, in effect, abandon the very freedoms, institutions and values that we are fighting against terrorists to protect. We need to be careful in some of the debates that are occurring in the parliament. As a legislator, I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the values that I respect, that we as a parliament should respect, that differentiate us from the terrorists, are defended and are not washed away in a tide of hysteria. I come from a family that has been in this country for over 75 years. When my grandfather and my father came to Australia, there was an aliens act. They were regarded as non-whites—photographs were taken, their addresses were lodged with the relevant authorities and they were not allowed to move around this country unless they notified a change of address. There was a fear factor in operation. The internment procedures during the war rounded people up on the basis of race, on the basis of colour, and put them in a class of their own. There have been subsequent investigations; mistakes were made. We want to go after the terrorists. We want to go after the criminals. We want to go after the wrongdoers. Not everyone fits into that category so we need to be careful as a parliament not to develop a new fear, a new stage of McCarthyism—we have been through the McCarthyist era. From the Labor Party's point of view we will treat legislation on its merits, but we will not be intimidated by campaigns of misinformation. We will not be intimidated by certain ill-informed and prejudiced views. In all the time I have been here as a legislator, I think it is fair to say—and the honourable member who sits opposite was on the House of Representatives Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee with me—that this bill deserves support.00AMVHunt, Gregory, MPMr Hunt—Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene.10000Mossfield, Frank (The DEPUTY SPEAKER)The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Do you wish to ask a question?00AMVHunt, Gregory, MPMr Hunt—Yes, I do.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, TheThe DEPUTY SPEAKER—Is the member for Banks prepared to take a question?4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Absolutely.00AMVHunt, Gregory, MPMr Hunt—Excellent. My question to the honourable member for Banks is: do you include in those ill-informed views which you describe the views of the member for Watson, the member for Brand and the former defence minister Senator Ray, all of whom advised in support of government legislation which you have rejected?4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—It was a very timely committee report. But, if the honourable member listens to the debate and if he actually reads the report as I have and looks at the submissions, he will see that the government did not take all the recommendations of that committee on board. Indeed, it was a unanimous committee recommendation—and I note that Mr Jull, the honourable member for Fadden, was a member of that committee—and all said that, unless all the recommendations were taken up by the government, they would not recommend passage of the bill.There was a subsequent Senate committee inquiry, and now there has been another one where Senator Marise Payne and Senator Scullion looked at the bill afresh and opened up other avenues of concern. The truth is: honourable members did not look at some aspects of the bill because at that time the government set a time limit in which to report back on. Senator Ray and Mr Beazley have been party to a submission to the Senate committee that has further investigated that matter. In terms of the Labor Party's amendments that are now proposing there has actually been a development. So this is a bit of a moveable feast. People have put forward their positions honestly in terms of the information that was available. In our submission to the Senate committee, for instance, we said that maybe the Federal Police should be the ones who ask the questions, but we have realised that ASIO should retain that role and we have come up with a model in terms of the prescribed authority.The point I make to the honourable member is that you cannot be fixated on one point in time. That was a very good committee report, and I do not detract from any of the recommendations that were made in that report, but other issues have been raised. Indeed, the former Solicitor-General, Gavin Griffith—the person who successfully represented the Commonwealth in a series of constitutional cases before the High Court—raises questions about the constitutionality of having chapter III judges as part of the prescribed authority. We also need to look at the issue of non-suspects. With the greatest respect to my colleagues, I have a difference of opinion to them. I respect where they are coming from, but I did not come into the parliament to support legislation that treats people who are non-suspects worse than people who are suspects—in other words, to support legislation that says you can detain people even if they are non-suspects. I have no problem with the concept of bringing people in for questioning. We do that all the time when we subpoena people. We do that all the time under the Australian Securities Commission, the Crime Commission, the former National Crime Authority and the state crime commissions. But it is a big concept, it is a big bridge, to say that you want to detain people for investigation not because you are worried they are suspects but because, at the end of the process—which could be an unlimited process—they might go out and say something.We have come up with a model and we have built on that model. There have been discussions with the Attorney-General. I thought it was a wonderful report, but it did not look at other issues. Indeed, Mr Beazley and Senator Ray are not lawyers. Mr Beazley is very strong on defence, but he is not a lawyer; it is the same with Senator Ray. They have credibility and should be listened to. What do you say about Senator Marise Payne, who signed up to most of the recommendations and put some qualifications on three others? She needs to be taken into account.The point I am trying to make to the honourable member is that everyone is trying to do the right thing. The problem with this legislation is that it has been conceived in haste, and it has become flawed because it has not followed a proper process. It is well-intended, but with it you throw the baby out with the bathwater. In some respects, you end up with a situation that ignores the lessons of history. It ignores the fact that the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four would have all been executed, if there had been a death penalty, after trials that were subsequently found to have miscarried. Why? Because the police told lies. Let us learn from the mistakes of the past.I commend what Senator Ray and Mr Beazley said in relation to the report. I say to the honourable member that they did the best they could in a short time frame. The committee had limited resources. They were under constraints, but they also did not investigate other aspects of the bill. In terms of that other investigation, members of the Law Council of Australia, Bret Walker SC and a whole range of people from across the country were saying, `We're not opposed to the concepts of what the government is trying to do here, but there is a better way of doing it.' I say to the honourable member that the points he makes are valid to a point, but the caravan has moved on. The Labor Party are not saying, `Let's not have legislation.' An amended bill that has yet to come out of the Senate will give ASIO extraordinary new powers. The Labor Party are not saying, `No change.' We have never said that. We have said, `Let's get it right. Let's not go to the lowest common denominator.' If there is a continuing problem, we say to the government, `Come back and talk to us.' I am trying to give you a complete answer to your question because it is a serious and fair question and, on the face of it, it should be asked. But the fundamental principle here is that we as a parliament should not go to a stage where we devalue the currency of the values that we are fighting for. If they are suspects, throw the book at them. Another way to deal with interviewing suspects or non-suspects is to have a penalty of five years imprisonment if they do not answer truthfully. The Labor Party is also saying that, when it comes to releasing them—and this happens under ICAC and under the Crime Commission at the moment in relation to secret hearings—make it a penalty if people disclose that they have been involved in a secret hearing. That of itself becomes a penalty. So they then can be dealt with if they talk about it. That is a creative and smarter way of doing things. Do not tell me that there will not be telephone taps on these people, because we have passed legislation that allows that to occur. We are told this is an intelligence-gathering exercise, but on the other hand we are presented with legislation that, frankly, is not about intelligence gathering but based on fear so that a non-suspect, someone who is interviewed by the authorities, can be detained. Initially they could have been detained for 28 days but that is now down to seven days. What happens if the terrorist offence is not going to happen for two or three months? Do we honestly believe that people are not going to know if their mother, brother, sister or solicitor is missing?I know where the honourable member is coming from but, if you stand back and have a look at it, you will see that you are creating more problems than you are attempting to solve. My advisers and the people I talk to who have knowledge of the New South Wales Crimes Commission say that, in many of these instances, the best intelligence is gathered when you release people, who cannot help but talk. Once they are released, a whole range of information is gathered. We as a parliament have to be very careful. There has to be a question here of the constitutionality—the old writ of habeas corpus. Are we going to say that we are going to pick people—non-suspects—off the street? That is what we are talking about here.I say to the honourable member that the first report was a good report as far as it went, but it did not adequately address those issues. At the end of the day, there is a decision that we may well have to make as to how far we go. The Labor Party caucus has unanimously supported the position we are enunciating in the Senate. We believe there is a better way to go—a way that empowers ASIO to bring people in and to question them in front of a prescribed authority. I believe the best message is to send out legislation that has the support of the government and the alternative government and for the dialogue between us to continue so that when we have to confront these issues they are not done on a political basis—on the basis of point scoring. We turned around in this parliament in less than 24 hours legislation to do with DNA testing. I was phoned by the minister's office shortly after 8 o'clock and was told that they wanted to bring in this legislation because there were 12,000 body parts and 10,000 DNA samples and that there was no legislation in relation to matching the body parts, the DNA and a whole range of other things. I suggested that the best way to go about this was to set up a framework bill with disallowance motions that could be used in emergency situations. The government took my suggestions on board and the legislation went through the parliament with unanimous support. That is the way it should be.I am happy to answer the honourable member's question because it gives me the opportunity to say that this is not as simple as the government is suggesting. The government's solution is to use a sledgehammer to crack a walnut and to violate some very fundamental principles. No-one in this country should be able to pull off the street people who are non-suspects and keep them incommunicado without a lawyer. This is legislation—if it goes through—that Pinochet would be proud to have in Chile if he were still in power. 10:58:0010216Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—If ever the Australian Labor Party is elected to office and the honourable member for Banks becomes a minister in that government, we can see that question time would return to what it was during the Keating period, when ministers used to take very many minutes to answer questions. I watched the clock as the member for Banks spoke. I know he feels very passionately about this question and that he is a very sincere person. I also know that he was a very good chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs when I and the Attorney-General were members. However, I suspect that, when this standing order in relation to interventions is ultimately reviewed, maybe the Procedures Committee could look at putting a limit on the number of minutes that a member is able to devour in answering a question as a result of such an intervention.4T4Melham, Daryl, MP0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—This government actually has a very good record of answering questions. We have a virtual guaranteed minimum and ministers do in fact keep their answers to questions much more truncated than historically was the case under the Keating and Hawke governments.On behalf of the government I thank all honourable members who have spoken in the debate, including the opposition members, for their support of this very important legislation—the Crimes Legislation Amendment (People Smuggling, Firearms Trafficking and Other Measures) Bill 2002. While we do appreciate the support of honourable members, that does not mean that we concede all of the sentiments made by those honourable members opposite.The people-smuggling measures in this bill will broaden the focus of Australia's people-smuggling legislation and will play an important part in tackling future organised smuggling in the region. The offences complement Australia's existing people-smuggling provisions in the Migration Act and provide full coverage for people-smuggling from Australia and via Australia and people-smuggling organised within Australia or by Australian citizens or residents. The offences also fulfil a commitment to criminalise people-smuggling made by participants in the Regional Ministerial Conference on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime held in Bali in February 2002.I want to comment at this stage on a number of the remarks made by honourable members, particularly honourable members opposite. The member for Blaxland claimed that the Fraser government—going right back into history—did not adequately protect Australia's borders. He said that there were no criminal checks. The checking of immigrants is something that is being given close attention by the Howard government, and I very much doubt that the inadequacies of the past are restricted to the period of the Fraser government. The world moves on—as a nation and as a world community, we have to face increased threats. The world changed on September 11 and again on October 12 as far as this nation is concerned, and we have to confront the risks and respond appropriately. The whole approach of the Howard government with this legislation and the war against terrorism and associated threats has been entirely appropriate. I am pleased that the honourable member for Blaxland does agree with the government in recognising that proper border control impacts at the local level—he may have referred to his electorate in the Bankstown area.The amendments are aimed at ensuring the pipeline of illegal immigration is disrupted. It will provide a basis for charging people involved in smuggling with other countries. While it is easy to dwell on the mistakes of past—many of which could be attributed to Labor governments—the support for this bill on both sides shows that this is a very appropriate response to the matters currently confronting this government and this nation. The member for Banks again reiterated the cross-party support for this bill. We appreciate the fact that the opposition is supporting this bill, although I think it is unfortunate at times that the opposition still seeks to make cheap, shallow political points in debate in this place. The member for Banks also referred to the opposition proposal for an Australian coastguard. I think it would be instructive and useful to place on record the actual situation. Australia has an effective, cooperative and coordinated approach to maritime surveillance and response. Let me outline for the benefit of those honourable members present a few of the facts. The detection rate of suspected illegal entry vehicles has been 100 per cent since July 2001. The member for Blaxland in his speech sought to criticise the government for not adequately protecting our borders. We all know that one of the key issues at the last election was the protection of Australia's borders. The Prime Minister said that this government and this nation should be able to determine who crossed our borders and no-one else. This government stood up very strongly and was returned with an increased majority. The people of Australia voted for this government and for its border protection policies. By comparison, this opposition and the Australian Labor Party were found wanting.Coastwatch currently has a fleet of 15 aircraft and two helicopters. Coastwatch also has access to the Customs fleet of marine vessels, including eight new Bay Class vessels, representing a $58 million investment by Customs. Coastwatch runs Australia's civil maritime surveillance and response program and operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year—and, I suspect, 366 days during those leap years.With the additional funds provided in the budget this financial year, Coastwatch expects to fly almost 22,000 hours of surveillance, patrolling over 530 million square kilometres of ocean. In this year's budget we are increasing our air surveillance by 20 per cent. Customs operates a fleet of eight 35-metre Bay Class vessels capable of providing up to 2,400 sea days per annum. The Customs and Defence officers who respond to Coastwatch sightings have all the powers they need to do the job. They can board suspicious ships and question people; they can pursue and stop mother ships on the open seas; they can seize vessels.Coastwatch works closely with the Defence Science and Technology Organisation to identify and evaluate emergent technology that will further improve the effectiveness of civil maritime surveillance. The government has provided funds for Coastwatch and Defence to evaluate the use of high-frequency surface wave radar in Northern Australia and for Coastwatch to fit out their surveillance aircraft with new communications equipment. This equipment will allow near realtime transfer of data and imagery from surveillance planes to response assets on the water, back to Coastwatch National Surveillance Centre and to client agencies. Coastwatch is trialing the use of commercial satellites for surveillance purposes and has also been involved with Defence in investigating the suitability for surveillance of unmanned aerial vehicles.It is difficult to see how the creation of a coastguard organisation that owns and operates all of its assets would result in improved performance. It would certainly be more costly. A coastguard would create a new bureaucracy with all of the overhead costs that entails. Coastwatch's overheads are currently borne by Customs. One of the proposals for a coastguard involves the transfer of patrol boats from Defence and vessels from Customs. This is short-sighted. We are all know that, given the current world situation, Defence needs to retain its patrol boats. They are critical to its training and development regime from junior inductees up to senior ranks. Defence and Customs would need to purchase new vehicles to pick up the non-Coastwatch work that their vehicles have been doing. In the US, for example, US customs still operates boats and aircraft, notwithstanding the role of the US Coastguard. A coastguard would need to set up a large, costly infrastructure, similar to the existing facilities in Defence to raise, train and sustain the crew of these vessels and for vessel maintenance. A coastguard would compete for staff with the Royal Australian Navy that already has difficulty in achieving its recruitment targets.In summary, Coastwatch can call on its aerial surveillance and maritime response capabilities as and when they are needed. It draws together the expertise of people and agencies doing what they do best and it does this with none of the additional bureaucracy and overheads associated with a stand-alone coastguard service. The proposal of the Australian Labor Party is seriously flawed and would not advance the situation at all. What we have at the moment is much better and much more cost effective.I will very briefly turn to a number of other matters. Firearms crime and the supply of firearms to the blackmarket through firearms trafficking are emerging problems impacting on community safety. Research indicates that those who engage in firearms crime are sourcing their weapons illegitimately and do not comply with licensing and registration requirements. The interstate firearms trafficking offences located in this bill are an important step in the combined Commonwealth, state and territory effort to fight the spread of illegal firearms and to improve community safety and control access to firearms, particularly hand guns. This is a very important bill. It is a bill which has attracted the backing of both sides of the chamber, although there have been some inappropriate comments by opposition members. I commend the bill to the House and I thank honourable members in anticipation of their support.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills10218R160110218Debate resumed from 9 December, on motion by Dr Kemp:That this bill be now read a second time.11:10:0010218Hunt, Gregory, MPMr HUNT00AMVFlindersLP10—The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 is an important step towards fulfilling our generational responsibilities, from one generation to the next. Generational responsibility ranges across a variety of fields. We have an economic responsibility, as parents do to children, as one generation does to the next, to ensure that the steps we take today do not impoverish the generation tomorrow. We have a security responsibility to ensure that we put in place adequate protections so that the generation whether it be 10 years or 30 years from now has in place an adequate security environment. We have an ecological or environmental responsibility to ensure that we also take the same steps today to protect and nurture and to provide a better future on the environmental front for the next generation. When you look at the general concept of intergenerational responsibility, of the task and duty that one generation owes to the next and that others have shown and given to us, that is where this bill comes in. It does so by seeking to make a significant contribution in that it helps to ensure that renewable based electricity generation in Australia changes from 10.7 per cent in 1990 to 12.7 per cent in 2010. In so doing it helps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 700 million tonnes through following those processes. Interestingly, at the 2000 World Economic Forum, where a thousand of the world's business leaders and numerous political leaders and social leaders were polled, the number one issue that they described as being a threat and of concern to the long-term health of the globe was greenhouse gas emissions. While there is debate about that, there is little doubt—and it has certainly been accepted by the CSIRO in Australia—that it is a significant issue. That issue may have been displaced by two threats, the spread of HIV AIDS infection throughout the developing world and the threat of terrorism, but it remains an issue of paramount long-term generational importance to the world. In that context this bill, which is about encouraging a body such as Phoenix Windpower in my own electorate of Flinders or any of those organisations or any of those sources of power generation, be they wind, hydro, solar, biomass or tidal, is an important step forward. It is not the solution, it is not the end of the game; it is simply part of the process of moving forward.I want to address the bill in three stages: firstly, the background; secondly, its importance; and, thirdly, the provisions of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002. Turning first to the background, the renewable energy bill is ultimately about increasing the supply of renewable energy in Australia, that energy that comes from sources which are natural and self-generating. The bill is about imposing tougher standards as well on those producers who attempt to defraud the current tradable permits system. The tradable permits system is a way of providing an economic instrument of achieving a desirable social, environmental and economic outcome. The third thing about the bill is that it expresses the government's commitment to renewable energy and the objectives of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. That act promotes the use of renewable energy through a sophisticated and developed system of market based trading. The government's challenge is to produce an extra 9,500 gigawatt hours of renewable based electricity per year by the year 2010. So, very simply, the purpose of the bill is to resolve current challenges in the renewable energy sources scheme through adjustments to the legislation, and to provide new options.The importance of the bill is twofold. First, it helps clarify key definitions about renewable energy, including guidelines on accredited power stations and the capacity to acquire new electricity resources. This information means that we are much better able to assess our progress, our challenges and our failures in providing the renewable energy that we need. It is both a desirable economic goal and a desirable environmental goal. The second important element of the bill is that it introduces new measures against producers who engage in illegal, inappropriate or fraudulent conduct. There are three particular areas that this bill progresses in relation to combating fraudulent conduct. First, it introduces new penalties against gaming in the trading of emission rights, including the suspension of entitlements. What is gaming? Gaming is the manipulation of outputs for an increase in renewable energy certificates without actually increasing renewable energy production. It is taking smart steps to pretend that you are producing energy through renewable sources when you are not. That process of gaming is wrong. It is a fraudulent process that this bill seeks to address squarely and directly. The second of the measures against producers who engage in illegal practices is the appointment of officers empowered to enforce the guidelines and objectives of the renewable energy act. These officers play an important role in ensuring that the long-term actions that we want to introduce to reduce greenhouse gases are actually enforced. The third step to protect against illegal practices is to introduce new information-gathering powers to aid in the auditing, monitoring and compliance of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. I turn to the specific provisions of the bill. In essence, they amend the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. Perhaps most significantly, item 33 of schedule 1 of the bill outlines the definitions that constitute a renewable energy source. It changes the focus from the technologies—the means of producing the energy—to the sources from which they must come. So it provides greater flexibility; rather than closing off the technologies, it opens them up. The test must be whether or not these technologies genuinely use renewable sources in creating electricity. Wind, solar, hydro, tidal and biomass are all sources of renewable energy.I want to focus very briefly on biomass because we have a significant problem within my electorate of Flinders. That is the problem created by the outfall of Boag's Rocks or Gunnamatta Beach. Daily, 420 million litres of secondary treated sewage flow out at Gunnamatta Beach. It is causing environmental damage to the area, it represents a health risk and, in the context of this bill, it also represents an extraordinary waste of renewable energy. Biomass—and there is much work to be done; I do not want to imply in any way that it is a completed process—offers a means of generating renewable energy. That 420 million litres contains a significant quantity of biomass. There is a great deal of treatment work that needs to be done, and this bill provides one of the incentives for biomass to be more effectively utilised in the future.There are other provisions within the bill. Item 57 relates to the new penalties for producers who attempt to obtain tradeable permits by fraud. The regulator can now suspend a fraudulent supplier for up to two years. It is a powerful penalty, as anybody who seeks to perpetrate a fraud on the system of tradable permits will effectively risk crippling their business.Ultimately, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 is about increasing the effectiveness of renewable energy within Australia. The bill is about demonstrating Australia's commitment to environmental sustainability. It is a step, though it is not the final step along the route. It demonstrates Australia's commitment by supporting the growth of renewable energy to 12.7 per cent of total electricity consumption by 2010, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 700 million tonnes in the above process and by ensuring that there is encouragement for Australian suppliers to move towards the position of creating greater renewable energy usage.There is more to be done, but I want to thank in particular the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Environment Australia and the Australian Greenhouse Office for their work both on this bill and more generally in encouraging the use of renewable energy sources in Australia. Ultimately, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 is about creating an environmentally sustainable, competitive and efficient resource industry, and it does this by providing clear and relevant information on all issues relating to renewable energy production by providing a broader base, by providing incentives and by protecting against fraud. With the greatest enthusiasm, I commend this bill to the House. 11:21:0010221Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—The government's performance in the environmental area has been less than commendable. Over a long period, the government has shown that it has no or very little commitment to long-term environmental issues. When we hear the Minister for the Environment and Heritage talking about issues in the House, he tends to stand and talk about touchy-feely issues that have the support of the whole of the Australian population, like whale watching and preserving and protecting whales. These are very important issues, but there are other issues that are extremely important—and one of those is renewable energy. Whilst we on this side of the chamber will be supporting the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002, I would be very remiss if I did not express in the strongest terms my disappointment with the government for the way that it has performed in this area.The member for Flinders spoke about intergenerational responsibility. I do not think there is any area where we have a greater intergenerational responsibility than the environment. It is not only about the environment; it is about our future as a country. The environment goes across all areas of government, and it is extremely important that we ensure sustainability. Without environmental sustainability, which links into economic sustainability, we as a country face a very bleak future.The member for Flinders also spoke about ecological responsibility—that we need to protect and nurture our environment. I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Flinders on this. He says that this is a step along the way. I would argue that it is a very small step; it is not enough. We really need to make a substantial commitment to the environment. I see renewable energy and research into renewable energy as being one of the areas that are so important.I come from a region that is rich in coal. The coal industry is extremely important to Australia. I believe that we should protect jobs; that is a very important part of our economy. We need to ensure that it grows and prospers. But there is the other side of it: coal is a finite resource. Unless we look to the future, unless we seriously consider that intergenerational responsibility in Australia and throughout the world, we will bear the brunt of being a short-sighted, inward looking nation that just reacts to the immediate issue and the pressures that are placed upon us at that moment. Our approach to energy, the environment and sustainability really worries me.One issue that has been very prominent in today's news is the fact that the government has announced that it will no longer fund the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Renewable Energy. Here we are today debating the renewable energy amendment bill, and at the same time the government is refusing to give any money to the centre. This is very sad. On one hand, the government is cutting funding to the research centre in the area of renewable energy; on the other hand, it is giving $68.5 million to the mining industry. That is an industry that I support, and that money will be used for them to implement changes, to operate in a cleaner, greener way. But we also need to have money put into this alternate area. It is very sad that we have a government which really has no credibility whatsoever in the area of renewable energy. This decision demonstrates that very clearly.This government is attacking the renewable energy industry rather than making a commitment to it. When it came to office, it cut all funding and shut down the energy R&D corporation. The Australian Greenhouse Office has now exhausted its funds for supporting renewable energy, and the Photovoltaic Rebate Program has been significantly underspent this year. The questions I ask are these: where are we going with research into renewable energy? Who will fund it? What incentives is the government putting in place? I believe the government really has shown that it has a total lack of integrity and commitment in this area. It makes me very sad. We are actually losing opportunities in the area of employment, which I will talk about a little later, and as a nation we are showing that we are very short-sighted. I believe that this is another example of just following the United States, and I will talk a little about that later. There has been the failure of the government to ratify the Kyoto agreement; and the government has just adopted policies that have been adopted in the US rather than looking at these issues from an Australian point of view, embracing new technologies and new ideas and actually trying to be a leader. In Australia we are in a position where we could be a leader in the field of renewable energy; we could link that into the strong energy base we already have in Australia. Instead, we are putting our heads in the sand and not really embracing the opportunities that exist. The government has failed to fully understand the implications of greenhouse or has decided that it will not have to address the problem—that that will be for a government in the future. The impacts of climatic change will get worse. We will have more extreme climatic episodes. We will have more droughts, floods, hurricanes and cyclones. These are all side effects—84THaase, Barry, MP83NHall, Jill, MPMs HALL—I hear the member for Kalgoorlie on the other side showing his contempt for the environment and his total lack of understanding of issues relating to energy. We have already seen the effect of greenhouse warming on coral in the Great Barrier Reef with the bleaching of the coral. We need to seriously address this issue. I wholeheartedly support the proposal by the shadow minister for environment and heritage that the mandatory renewable energy level be increasedto five per cent. I noticed in an article I read that Greenpeace argue that the mandatory renewable energy target should be increased to 10 per cent. We on this side feel that the current two per cent target is not sufficient and we would like to see that increased to five per cent, as outlined by the shadow minister in his speech in this debate.The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 aims to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and administrative integrity of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. I spoke on that legislation in 2000 and detailed some of my concerns and some of the issues that I felt needed to be addressed. It is good that we are coming back to make it a more workable document, but I am sad that it does not go far enough. It does not look at all of the opportunities we could gain from making a greater commitment to renewable energy. That is very sad. The bill clarifies definitions used in the act, including the definition of `eligible renewable energy sources', and covers all of the other issues that have been raised by previous speakers. I will not go into those, because I would be repeating what has already been said in the debate. In the time I have left, I will touch on a couple of other issues and look in particular at some of the activities happening in the area that I represent in this parliament.Firstly, I draw the distinction between the government and the opposition in this area. The government is looking at administrative issues—things that we support—but it has a two per cent target, it is following the US and it fails to ratify the Kyoto protocol. On the other hand, the opposition are looking at creative ways to use new technology and embrace the renewable energy industry, seeing it as a future for Australia and an opportunity that Australia can become involved in. We are looking at increasing the mandatory target to five per cent and we believe in signing the Kyoto protocol. I do not think you could have a greater distinction between two approaches than that between the government and the opposition. The government is maintaining the status quo and just giving lip-service to developing the renewable energy industry, and the opposition are about embracing opportunity and the future. So we have one side in this chamber stuck in the past and trying to do everything it can to minimise its commitment in this area, and we have the opposition—which will be the government in the future—embracing new ideas and realising that it is important to invest in this area rather than take money out of research and development relating to renewable energy. Before going to what is happening within my own electorate, I would like to refer to the Origin Energy report entitled Incremental electricity supply costs from additional renewable and gas-fired generation in Australia. The report addresses some of the fallacies that have been raised in this area. I recommend the report to members in this House. The report shows that our greenhouse emissions could be substantially reduced at a modest cost to the electricity supply industry and without damage to our relative international competitiveness and also addresses all the pluses renewable energy has for the environment. The report was brought out on 23 August and it is well and truly worth examining. I am sure members on the other side of the House will find it most edifying.When I spoke on this bill back in 2000, I highlighted some of the initiatives that were being taken within the Hunter. I detailed to the House the fact that Pacific Power has a strong renewable group and that Energy Australia—the electricity distributor in the area—has taken a lot of initiatives in this area. The Hunter region as a whole has a very strong commitment to renewable and sustainable industries. As members of this House would know, the Hunter area has a very strong industry base and a strong coalmining history that we are very proud of and wish to see continue. The industry development centre in the Hunter has for some time been giving priority to the development of sustainable energy industries with clusters concentrated on the development of environmentally friendly commercial activities. The Newcastle council has also been involved in a number of activities through its business unit.I would like to touch on Energy Australia very quickly. Energy Australia was the first company to introduce a `Pure Energy' renewable energy scheme. The scheme was introduced in 1996 and has flourished. It was an initiative of and supported by the Carr government. This once again contrasts the difference between governments: a government that is prepared to look at new initiatives, particularly in the area of renewable energy, and a government that has a closed mind and wants to maintain the status quo and do the least it possibly in the renewable energy industry. I commend the bill to the House, but I encourage the government to open its mind, look at more initiatives and take this matter further. A two per cent target is not good enough. The government needs to look at some of the initiatives that have been taken in the Hunter, particularly the initiative of Energy Australia, which was introduced through the far-sightedness of the Carr government. I believe that, unless we address this issue as a nation, the future for Australia is rather bleak.11:38:0010223Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002—a very worthy piece of legislation which will clarify eligible renewable energy sources, establish what an accredited power station is and the relevant acquisition of electricity. I think this fits in very well with the research priorities announced recently by the Prime Minister for Australia's future prosperity. I note that under `An environmentally sustainable Australia', the target is to transform the way Australians use the nation's land, water, mineral and, importantly, energy resources through a better understanding of the environment and the application of new technologies to natural resource industries. I think we would all welcome that. I would now like to move to the question of another very worthy renewable source of energy, and that is ethanol. There are a number of distilleries in Australia producing ethanol; however, the United States is at the forefront of ethanol production worldwide. There are 56 distilleries in the US producing 1.8 billion gallons, which is equivalent to seven billion litres Australian—with a further trebling of production by 2010 to 19 billion litres.However, an ethanol distillery in a community—an average size of 140 million gallons a year, which is equivalent to 150 million litres Australian—would expand the annual economic base of a community by $110 million a year. It would generate additional household income of $19 million and provide 41 direct jobs, particularly for young people in spheres such as chemistry, and mechanical and electrical engineering. Importantly, being renewable it requires the use of any green biofeedstock such as cane and grain. Ethanol is a real benefit to the environment. It is non-toxic, water soluble and biodegradable. In fact, it is so harmless you actually drink it whenever you have an alcoholic drink. So, if it is good enough for you to drink, it must be pretty much good enough for anything else. But it is the environmental benefits that are significant. Ethanol use in the United States reduced carbon dioxide emissions—that is, greenhouse gas emissions—by 3.6 million tonnes in 2001. That was the equivalent of taking off American roads half a million cars. So the benefits of even a moderate blend of ethanol are quite extraordinary.It is in fact with gross polluters where the real benefits of ethanol are realised. In the United States over half of vehicle emissions come from what are called gross polluters. These are older vehicles or even new vehicles with malfunctioning pollution control systems. Generally they make up only 10 per cent of the American fleet. With even a very modest ethanol blend, emissions of carbon monoxide, particulates and other greenhouse gases are reduced by 40 per cent. So from 10 per cent of the vehicles you get a 40 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas and particulate emissions. I will return to gross polluters later in my address, but they are a very significant factor.I turn now to an article that appeared in the Australian on 26 November. It was headed `Ethanol may void warranties' and said:One of the biggest suppliers of car components has warned that high ethanol concentrations in petrol will void the warranties on its products.It went on to say:In a letter to the Australian Automobile Association, US firm Gilbarco Veeder-Root says ethanol could make its pumps, meters and nozzles “fail prematurely”.AAA executive director Lauchlan McIntosh yesterday said the letter reinforced his members' opposition to a mandated ethanol levy in petrol.Again, Gilbarco, in its letter, said:... ethanol could cause “irreversible damage to equipment”.I am sure that that is quite alarming. Let us turn to Gilbarco Veeder-Root in the United States. Veeder-Root are a leading global supplier of automatic tank gauging and fuel management systems, including the very famous Red Jacket brand of submersible pumps and pressurised line leak detectors. Let us look at the very exciting attributes of Red Jacket Quantum Velocity 2 pumps. The Quantum 20 pumps are designed to run on diesel, 100 per cent gasoline or 80 per cent gasoline with up to 20 per cent ethanol. The Quantum Ag can run on 0 to 100 per cent ethanol. I suggest that Gilbarco Veeder-Root contact their parent company in the United States and find out how to progress so that their componentry in Australia does not fail. They also need to explain to the Australian public and those who use their pumps here why they are selling inferior material in Australia which is likely to fail when their parent company in the United States is selling Red Jacket systems that are able to run on up to 100 per cent ethanol. The fact that some of the biggest customers of Veeder-Root in Australia are the oil companies may have something to do with it. But that article is severely misleading—not by the journalist, I might add, but by the content that has been given to them by the Australian Automobile Association and Gilbarco Veeder-Root.I turn to another article, from the Sydney Morning Herald, and it is titled `Tank's a lot: drivers left in the dark by Costello's Catch 22 on ethanol'. The article refers to a question asked of the Treasurer in question time on Monday. It claims:... the Government's inane policy on ethanol, a fuel additive commonly sold at dangerously high concentrations in petrol in NSW.It goes on to say that the chief of the Australian Petroleum Institute, Brian Nye, claimed:... it was made “quite clear” to him ... that no controls should be introduced that might damage Manildra's interests.Manildra sells ethanol in New South Wales. It goes on:Whatever the reason, motorists continue to suffer.The article says that vehicle manufacturers will not honour warranties for cars run on higher blends and that:People should be very careful of the effect the petrol they use has on the warranties of their cars. The Treasurer answered this question extremely well. He said that the government had yet to establish what levels of ethanol were safe, so it could set no standards at present. A very intelligent answer. Let us go to warranties for a moment. How many cars in Australia are still under warranty? The reality is that there are at present two million cars—model years 1999-2002—under warranty. There are 10 million vehicles in Australia in total, so there are eight million vehicles out of warranty. In fact, 80 per cent of the Australian fleet are out of warranty—and many of those are the gross polluters in the United States we just mentioned that will benefit most from potentially higher blends of ethanol. What needs to be done in this debate is for not only fossil fuel manufacturers but also the fossilised thinking of the Australian Automobile Association, the oil companies and the Australian Labor Party to pull themselves into the 21st century and accept what everybody else does with fuel. Do we legislate to say that people must not put diesel in their unleaded cars? No, we do not. Do we legislate that people must not put unleaded fuel in their diesel vehicles? No, we do not. We rely on the commonsense of the Australian people. They can read. What we need to do is to make information clearly available so that those people who have a vehicle under warranty, if they are concerned, know what they are buying. The 80 per cent of people who have vehicles that are out of warranty will be able to purchase a product that is soft on the wallet and soft on the environment—because ethanol soon will be very competitive with petroleum, and that is the rub for the oil companies. That is what we are seeking. Let us continue to remember that 80 per cent of vehicles in Australia are out of warranty. I commend the Treasurer for remaining very calm under that questioning. Now let us move to another article. This article is headed `Ethanol in petrol alert ignored: ALP'. It states: The ALP has accused the Federal Government of ignoring bureaucratic advice to limit the ethanol content of petrol, claiming that its failure to act risked up to $2500 in damage to every car.Let us see what happens in the United States again. Let us look at General Motors; actually, they have got a company here in Australia that manufactures cars as well: Holden. Holden's parent company, General Motors, are the world's largest vehicle manufacturer. What are General Motors in the US doing? They have produced the first modern mass-produced ethanol vehicle in the United States. It is the 320 E85 Lumina. These vehicles operate on either ethanol, gasoline or any combination from a single tank. These are smart vehicles. They will sense what is in the tank and will switch automatically: 100 per cent ethanol, no worry; E85, no worry; gasoline, we'll do that. General Motors in the US are flexible, forward-looking and living in the 21st century—unlike the opposition. Ford, another significant car manufacturer, has built an E85 Taurus. It runs on 85 per cent ethanol. But my goodness me, they cannot have been alert to the ALP! Yes, it is risking damage. I hope they have sent a message over to Ford and General Motors.The reality is that, in the United States, these major manufacturers are looking at ethanol-powered flexible fuel vehicles, which are reducing smog-forming emissions by 30 to 50 per cent. The three top manufacturers in the US—Chrysler, Ford and General Motors—recommend the use of oxygenated fuels. I do wish the Australian Automobile Association would actually read that and listen to that. The manufacturers in the US—some of which are represented here—recommend the use of oxygenated fuels, such as ethanol, because of their clean air benefits.I commend the bill to the House, and I recommend that the fossil thinking of the opposition, the Australian Automobile Association and the oil companies comes into the 21st century. I commend the Treasurer and others for defending new fuels. We are going into the carbohydrate fuel age. Others need to lift their thinking.11:50:0010226Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—The Main Committee has been very charitable in allowing the honourable member for Dawson to canvass the issues she did on this piece of legislation. She was a little unfair in the way she characterised positions that have been put by the opposition. If, in the United States, the manufacturers are able to produce and put on the road smart cars—as she described them—what encouragement is being given to the Australian motor vehicle assemblers to do that here? That is the crux of the question. The crux of the question is—and she in her contribution indicated it— that the consumer has a right to know about the level of ethanol in fuel that might affect their cars.The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 attempts to make certain amendments to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. It might be helpful to the debate to remind listeners that the objects of the original act are (a) to encourage the additional generation of electricity from renewable sources, (b) to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, and (c) to ensure that renewable energy sources are ecologically sustainable. It is very important that, whilst a range of views have been expressed in this debate, we see that there are mutually inclusive objectives in this piece of legislation. They are: to encourage a renewable energy sector and at the same time make contributions to the reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases, while at all times remembering that we should be doing this in the most ecologically sustainable way possible. When we talk about sustainability, let us not be strictured by talking just about ecological sustainability. Economic sustainability can also be impacted in the attempts we are making. A number of people, including some of my colleagues on this side of the House, have questioned whether we are going about trying to meet some of the targets, such as the reduction in greenhouse gases, in the most efficient economic way. It is quite appropriate to raise those questions. It is a continuing debate that we should have and I think that some of these views, that might seem divergent, can meet to achieve the outcomes we want to see.The amendments to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 contained in this bill seek to fix the administrative deficiencies in the original legislation by further clarifying definitions, including the definition of eligible renewable energy sources, to now exclude those technologies, such as fuel cells, that transform energy sources into electricity. They seek to redefine the components of a power station such that the components that operate jointly are considered to be one power station for accreditation, with the responsibility for the accreditation concentrated in a single person. They seek to tighten the circumstances under which a power station is eligible for accreditation, with a new power generator only being eligible for accreditation if the regulator is confident it represents a new, separate station rather than an expanded and modified already accredited power station. Further, this bill removes the restrictions on small generation units, such as small-scale wind generators and solar water heaters, from being eligible for renewable energy certificates. It also expands the role of the renewable energy regulator to include information gathering to ensure compliance, and the ability to suspend an accredited power station.It is too early to assess the extent to which the act has contributed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and accelerated the generation of electricity from renewable sources. It should be noted that, as at July 2002, over a million renewable energy certificates had been generated. The objective of the original bill was to require electricity buyers and retailers to source an additional two per cent of their electricity purchase from renewable sources by the year 2010. The potential result in annual savings, it was hoped, would be six to seven million tonnes a year in emissions.The government's State of the Environment 2001 report states that greenhouse gas emissions increased in Australia by nearly 17 per cent between 1990 and 1998, with Australia's total emissions in 1997 being 431 million tonnes. The emissions savings of six to seven million tonnes a year expected to eventuate by 2010 will therefore only lead to a reduction of 1.6 per cent on the 1997 emission levels. This is a target that could be described as being not good enough, especially when we compare our situation with Europe's. The European Commission has set a target that 12 per cent of their energy needs must be sourced from renewable energy by 2010. I understand the point that is made by people in debates like this that the Europeans are starting from a completely different base from ours. However, the breadth with which they are attempting to reduce the energy requirements from non-renewable sources is very important.The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 is the only mandatory greenhouse measure introduced by the government. This government's commitment to reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions is severely lacking when compared with some of the state regimes. In particular, I want to talk today about the Victorian state government's greenhouse abatement strategies. Firstly, they include a Victorian greenhouse strategy—the first of its kind from any state in Australia—to cut the state's greenhouse emissions by seven per cent by 2010. The abatement strategy also promotes energy-efficient houses on new building projects, with incentives to developers who commit to a minimum four-star energy rating. The abatement program also includes working jointly with the building industry to implement a new five-star energy efficiency standard for all new homes. It also provides a solar hot-water rebate for all Victorians purchasing solar hot-water systems. The Victorian state government has awarded exploration tenders for brown coal at two sites in the Latrobe Valley under an initiative that will promote new environmental technologies to reduce greenhouse emissions and, at the same time, generate significant investment and jobs in the Latrobe Valley region. The Victorian government has also introduced a wind farm policy and planning guidelines to promote wind farm developments in Victoria as a renewable energy source, and it provides certainty in the planning process—which has been one of the great criticisms that has abounded within the sector, especially from those who wish to use and promote wind technology as a renewable energy source.As part of the 1997 Kyoto protocol, Australia undertook to limit greenhouse gas emission growth to an eight per cent increase on the 1990 levels. It has often been indicated that this was a fairly good outcome in an Australian context when it was compared with other industrialised nations which had to cut their emissions on the 1990 levels by an average of 5.2 per cent through to the year 2012. Again, I indicate that the reason for the disparities in these targets was an acknowledgment of the base, but even acknowledging the base as a contribution on Australia's behalf to what has to be a global commitment, we really need to see that there is a great advantage to us in at least sitting down with those who are going to embrace Kyoto, rather than being on the outside, with only the United States, as a non Kyoto nation. This debate occurs at a time when we have just had the announcement of the new round of cooperative research centre funding. Regrettably, the CRC for renewable energy will no longer be funded after this seven-year round of funding. I think this sends out an appalling signal. There needs to be an explanation by government of the way in which it is going to have an integrated approach. Does it have a real commitment to properly investigating the science that can be used as the basis for different renewable energy initiatives? The Minister for Science, in announcing the successful CRC funding, said yesterday that:Significantly, the vast majority of CRCs will undertake research in areas consistent with the national research priorities announced by the Government last week ... That leads people to perhaps reacquaint themselves with what those priorities are. In the Prime Minister's announcement of last week he listed the national research priorities as follows:An Environmentally Sustainable Australia;Promoting and Maintaining Good Health;Frontier Technologies for Building and Transforming Australian Industries; andSafeguarding Australia.He went on further in the media release to indicate that:An environmentally sustainable Australia isabout transforming the way Australians use the nation's land, water, mineral and energy resources. This will depend on a better understanding of the environment and the application of new technologies to natural resource industries. Without the work of bodies such as the Australian CRC for Renewable Energy, how will we further develop the science? Or is it that there is this scatter-gun approach, with a little bit here and there, without trying to develop bodies like a CRC, where we have industry, universities and state bodies all involved in coming together to make a concerted effort.In a question on notice that was answered in August of this year, the member for Hunter asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in terms of the $264 million allocated for the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, how much has been spent so far. The answer to that came out as $13.7 million of $264 million. That covered six projects. When will the rest of that money be allocated and spent? What types of technologies are we going to look at?No doubt the member for Kalgoorlie, who is to follow me in this debate, will touch upon the Derby tidal project—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Why would you think that?HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINS—It would come as a surprise if he did not. On occasion, I have had to mention this project in other debates. I have also indicated that, whilst overall it might have some merit in being a renewable energy source, that does not mean that that is the only criterion upon which it should be tested. I would be interested to hear of the progress on those other environmental concerns that people from time to time have mentioned in terms of that project.Fortunately, in the not too distant future, the review of the operation of this act that was outlined in section 162 of the original act will take place. That will be a very important opportunity for us to look at whether what the original act was designed to do and what this bill is now attempting to improve has in fact been achieved. Importantly, the thing that we want to see is that we do not get isolated and overwhelmed that this is all about creating a new renewable energy sector. It also has the other purpose of the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and we want to see that the sorts of targets that people would like to achieve have been achieved.The important aspect of this debate is that the honourable member for Wills, as the shadow spokesperson for the environment, has indicated on behalf of the opposition our commitment to increase the target from two per cent—as envisaged by the government in the legislation before us—to five per cent. Other figures are thrown around, but I think that a five per cent target is achievable. It is achievable in the context that it can be sustained, not only in an environmental ecological sense but also in an economic sense. One of the important aspects to this debate is that it is sometimes clouded by the notion that the move to renewable energy sources will overwhelmingly cost jobs. I do not think that that really is the case. The pursuance of new technologies—of which you, Mr Deputy Speaker Lindsay, would be fully aware; for example, the potential for photovoltaic generation of power increases as we reach horizons in development—will reduce the costs to consumers of power generated from those sources. They are the types of things that we should concentrate on. The government should show leadership to the wider community who share the concern for the problems that this legislation is trying to address. With goodwill, we can achieve the outcomes that are being mentioned in the intergenerational sense in this debate.12:06:0010230Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise today to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002. It is a bill that I wholeheartedly support. One of the reasons for that wholehearted support is that it offers clarification on what are eligible renewable energy sources under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. The clarification confirms, among other things, that fossil fuel based products such as plastic and rubber would not be eligible under the act as a renewable energy source. This clarification is vital for people who are looking to invest in renewable energy projects. The common theme among renewable energy projects is that generally they have an exceptionally long life, they have a low operating cost but they demand high capital investment—and capital raising in an unsure environment is a very difficult task indeed. So this amendment will go some way to clarifying the future for ideas in renewable energy. This amendment will clarify what is an eligible renewable energy source, what is an accredited power station and what is relevant acquisition of electricity. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 was a world-leading piece of legislation, and these amendments today will enhance and strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness in the administration of the legislation. With the increased knowledge of the effects of greenhouse emissions on the environment, renewable clean energy is a way that we as a nation can minimise the impact on our environment. Australia's very way of life revolves around the great outdoors, and we gain many benefits from this robust way of living. But unless we encourage the generation of electricity from renewable sources and continue to investigate practical and meaningful solutions to many of the issues raised at Kyoto, our lifestyles will change in a very detrimental way. I have a particular interest in renewable energy. One of the regions in my electorate of Kalgoorlie has the potential to produce clean, renewable energy using the tidal resources of the Derby region. The member for Scullin almost pre-empted the fact that I would, in this opportunity to speak to this legislation, speak of Derby tidal energy. That was highly predictable. The member for Scullin also said that the government is neglecting investment encouragement in the renewable energy field because, after seven years, we are not supporting the renewable energy CRC. I bring the attention of the House to the fact that some $20 million-plus has been pledged by the Minister for Education, Science and Training to the Desert Knowledge Project in Central Australia. Associated with that particular project is the Centre for the Management of Arid Environments in Kalgoorlie, my home town, in Western Australia. This is a very relevant institution. Members need to keep in mind the fact that some 70 per cent of the Australian landmass is arid environment. As much as it may be extremely popular—and fashionable, dare I say—to pursue renewable energy and studies of the environment per se, the majority of this population lives on the coastal fringes of this great nation and the greatest majority of this same great nation is arid environment. Money ought to be spent—and is being spent—on investigations of sustainability and appropriate management of our 70 per cent arid environment.The member for Shortland suggested that, because of our lack of attention and encouragement in supporting the renewable energy environment in Australia, we are suffering extremes of weather conditions. In recent times, we have had a great deal of debate pertaining to weather and weather forecasting, because we are in the grip of one of the worst droughts that we have ever seen, a drought covering more of this nation than ever before at the same time. But it is interesting and very sobering to note—enlightening to note, perhaps—that the most detailed long-term records kept by the most senior meteorological department of this country show no significant change in the overall highs and lows of our weather conditions since records commenced. It is interesting to note that, even though we blame the currently extremely dry conditions on the El Nino effect, this particular El Nino effect indicates a temperature increase in the mid-Pacific of only some two degrees. Previous El Nino conditions have shown temperature increases of some five degrees. One could hardly suggest that we are entering a period of extreme weather conditions—certainly not that the conditions are irreversible. The member for Shortland suggested that this Howard-led conservative government has no interest in reducing greenhouse gases. I wish to enlighten the member for Shortland—hopefully, not too many other members—that this Howard-led government entered into an agreement that has created the remote renewable power generation program. That program in Western Australia alone makes some $80 million available over a four-year period to meet 50 per cent of the capital cost of projects for power generation that is off grid.I am pleased to say that that leads me directly back to the Derby tidal power proposal. This tidal energy proposal—the capturing of tidal energy and its conversion to electricity—is a project that will take some $360 million to complete. But the $360 million so invested will last indefinitely. The operating costs are absolutely minimal—the turbines are changed as technology changes; in 20 years you would see a turbine change-out—and the project has the potential to produce up to 120 kilowatts of power. Through sophisticated switching and control of water flows, the project has the capacity to produce energy on an ongoing basis around the clock—unlike, for instance, the St Laurent installation on the west coast of France in Brittany, which is a periodic producer of tidal energy using the great mass of water that is held captive until such time as that energy is required to be fed into an electric grid across France, a grid that is, as I say, predominantly supplied by nuclear power.The Kimberley tidal region has a movement of up to 12 metres, and for eons this energy has been doing nothing more than move the tide backwards and forwards. This has been noted in the past by the high tide day, which is celebrated annually in Derby on the king tides. Next year, 2003, it is going to be celebrated on 18 May. That will allow visitors to Derby to witness that incredible rush of tidal water: from zero at the bottom of the Derby wharf to lapping the Derby wharf six hours later—some 12 metres of movement. This project is proposed to harness that energy.We hope that energy will be used to provide the domestic power requirements of the West Kimberley. As a testing block, it has the potential to promote the construction of similar facilities producing up to 1,000 megawatts. That particular area is adjacent to substantial mineral deposits. Those mineral deposits have been undeveloped thus far but known about for many years. They have been undeveloped because there is no source of economic power. In this regard, I refer to bauxite deposits that have the potential to produce aluminium—known around the world as solidified electricity. To produce aluminium you need huge quantities of electricity at a world price of less than US2c per unit. The creation of tidal energy in that vicinity would cost less than US2c per unit and would be limitless and clean.If we do not in the immediate future have the opportunity to supply one of the mining industries with cheap clean energy, the other potential for that conversion of energy from tidal is to produce a truly clean form of hydrogen. Many may recall their high school science experiments and one involving a very simple process where electrodes were put in water and energy separated hydrogen from oxygen. That is a very simple process indeed and, on a larger scale, there is very little difference in the process.The topography of the Kimberley coast that I was referring to has been assessed by the CSIRO to have the potential to supply the equivalent energy of all the energy consumed in Australia today. That is a very sobering statistic. If you consider all of the energy that is used today, it includes coal, fuel oil, diesel, energy for mobility and heating homes, and, I might add, even down to the log on the fire. All of the energy used in Australia today would be able to be created with the tidal movement of the Kimberley coast. In reaction to this incredible statement by none other than a reputable organisation like the CSIRO, this Howard-led government committed $1 million last year for the study of the hydrogen economy. One of the first moves in this regard will be the convening of a hydrogen conference in Broome in May 2003. This conference will attract some 350 delegates and we trust about 100 international journalists to the region. The significance of this conference is that it will bring to one spot speakers well informed in aspects of the hydrogen economy. For those of you not aware, hydrogen is considered by the automotive industry to be the future energy source for mobility. Many of you would be aware of the disastrous reputation of cities like Los Angeles for having a level of pollution that is at times simply unbearable. The combination of a forward thinking automobile industry, the deployment of fuel cells as opposed to internal combustion engines and the use of hydrogen produced from a clean renewable source through those fuel cells would produce mobility in cities from vehicles like cars where the only by-product of that process would be H20 in liquid form—no more carbon dioxide, no more carbon monoxide, no more carbon particles in the atmosphere. This would be an incredible breakthrough. The convening of this conference in Broome in May next year will give Australians the opportunity to visit, interact and understand the fact that hydrogen is the energy source of the future. Australia needs to be well up to speed on what is happening in that area. The conference will bring together keynote speakers from across the world.The technology exists already to utilise hydrogen in many forms. I have seen—with my own eyes, as they say—laptop computers powered up with 27 hours of energy, using hydrogen and fuel cells. I have seen refrigerator sized units producing five kilowatts of electricity and five kilowatts of heating simply tapping into a supply of domestic gas and extracting the hydrogen from it—doing away forever with the necessity to build power stations and electrical grids. The technology exists, but we have to develop it further.I return to the legislation we are addressing. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 will give a firm foundation for Australia and its states and territories to build a viable future of renewable energy resource industries. The amendments not only clarify the act but the regulations ensure that accredited power stations conduct their operations in the spirit of the act or face possible suspension of their accreditation by the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator. I am pleased to note that these amendments will bring the act into line with similar Commonwealth legislation. I commend this bill to the House. 12:23:0010232Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—For some time, representatives of Australia's renewable energy industry have been calling for this government to recognise the rapid growth and increasing importance of the industry. Although the government is, with this bill, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002, giving lip-service to the renewable energy industry, the facts are plain. The government has failed to introduce any effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or to support the renewable energy industry. Australia's output of carbon dioxide continues to grow rapidly as a direct result of this government's destructive policies. I remind the Prime Minister of the advice that he received not long ago from his own Science, Engineering and Innovation Council: In earlier industrial and social movements attitudes changed from defence and denial to recognition of opportunities ... and ultimately to the realisation that what is right for the community in the long-term can be good for the growth and profits of industry ... Increasingly the world's major corporations accept this transition ... If we wait for ratification while other countries act, Australia runs the risk of missing out on global opportunities, and may be left behind in terms of greenhouse compliance. The advice is plain and rather conservative, yet all we see from the government is obfuscation and the most minimal movement towards a position that recognises the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 is a tentative initiative that will be quite ineffectual and even counterproductive and must be followed up by other measures if we are to be serious in significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Unless the growth of emissions is stopped, it will rapidly swamp the benefit that the two per cent replacement may have.The Minister for the Environment and Heritage admitted on the ABC science show Catalyst that we have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent to be able to stabilise the climate. I say to the minister: we have a very long way to go. The government hopes that the new bill will lead to a two per cent increase in the generation of electricity from renewable resources by 2010. In contrast, the Californian government has passed into law an act that requires an extra one per cent of energy to be produced from renewable sources every year until 20 per cent of the total comes from renewables.The Howard government's position does not bear comparison. At the Electricity Supply Association conference on renewable energy in Alice Springs in August there was general agreement that the mandatory renewable energy target, MRET, is far too conservative and can be easily met by wind energy and solar water heating alone, yet there are exciting new technologies in the wings waiting for more aggressive targets. Instead, the government's response is to take one of the success stories of MRET—solar water heating—and remove it from the list of technologies. Is the government really serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions? Of course not. If it were then why doesn't it increase Australia's renewable energy target to the same level as California's?I believe that the recently released Council of Australian Governments report Towards a truly national and efficient energy market more accurately reflects the government's renewable energy policy than the bill we are debating here today does. The report makes a number of disturbing recommendations. Among them is the scrapping of the mandatory renewable energy target of two per cent renewables. Are we here engaged in a parliamentary propaganda stunt in which the government seeks to represent itself as environmentally friendly while at the same time its agents are preparing to block initiatives that are being represented as great advances?The COAG report states that MRET should be scrapped on the grounds that it would be more economically efficient to allow other greenhouse gas abatement technologies to compete with renewables. Unbelievably, the ones named are coal seam methane and so-called clean coal technology. These energy sources will not do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As fossil fuels, they can only increase emissions.Clean coal technology is a transparent fraud that has been perpetrated by the environment minister and the more unscrupulous members of the coal industry. Put simply, clean coal is ordinary coal ground up and washed with caustic soda to remove sulfur-containing minerals. Burning the resulting clean coal in no way reduces emissions of carbon dioxide. It does release less sulfur dioxide but, since Australian coal is generally regarded as being low in sulfur, the advantage of using clean coal is marginal at best. It certainly does not release less carbon dioxide, and that is a matter of concern in this debate today. Coal seam methane is a by-product of coalmining. As coal exports increase, more coal seam methane gas becomes available to be used to meet an attractive low-cost emissions reduction target under carbon trading rules. But the net result is still an increase, not a decrease, in emissions. This is not sustainable for the future. Renewable energy reduces the need for both coal and coal seam gas emissions and can be the basis of a sustainable future.I note that the COAG committee was chaired by former senator Warwick Parer, well known for his historical family interest in the coal industry. Former Senator Parer, who publicly questioned the greenhouse effect when he was minister, has now been put in charge of the emissions reduction process. I ask: is this yet another case of the fox being in charge of the henhouse? Wouldn't the public interest be best served by a chairman who was widely accepted as being unbiased?The draft COAG report recommends immediate abolition of MRET, even though it does not anticipate greenhouse trading for three years. Why the haste? Much investment has already been put in place by young industries that are relying on MRET. One exciting young industry has stated that it would have to move offshore without MRET. The government's determination to suppress opposition to its policies is made clear by the arrangement for the receipt of comments on the COAG report. The 168-page report was released on 15 November and the closing date for comments was 6 December—deliberately, in my view, insufficient time for most interested parties to prepare any kind of detailed reply. One group was able to release a statement of opposition. The Business Council for Sustainable Energy, a lobby group representing the renewable energy industry, stated that scrapping the MRET would cost thousands of Australian jobs and billions of dollars of investment, much of it in regional Australia.In 1999-2000 the renewable energy industry directly employed 22,800 people and the number was rising. In comparison, in 1999 the entire Australian electricity industry employed 33,000 people and the number was in decline. The renewable energies industry annual rate of growth exceeds 12 per cent and it is doing this despite billion dollar subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and in the absence of government measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This industry is primed for an extraordinary burst of growth. Currently frustrated by this government's policies, the renewable energy industry is waiting for a Labor government to bring in the necessary policy changes such as signing the Kyoto protocol.The earth receives a tremendous flux of free energy that only requires an efficient collector for it to be put to use. Australia's scientists are world leaders in the field despite suffering from the Howard government's assault on universities and higher learning. Researchers in the School of Physics at the University of Sydney and engineers at SHP Ltd are shortly to install a small commercial solar plant at a major coal-fired power station which is competitive with conventional coal-fired electricity generation under current MRET rules. Existing coal-fired power stations using this development could reduce their carbon dioxide emissions and increase the fuel efficiency of their steam plant at a viable cost. A new industry will grow up around this technology and a considerable export market could also be established. Larger stand-alone solar plants using similar technology with thermal storage are being planned for inland New South Wales which would replace new coal-fired generation with reliable, 100 per cent clean, 24-hour solar power. These can be sold around the world. The estimated cost is close to the current cost of wind power, but the power would be reliable and the technology Australian owned. Will this promising export market be damaged by this government's refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol? Having seen these developments for myself during a visit to the University of Sydney with my friend and colleague Mr Kelvin Thomson, the shadow minister for the environment and heritage, I say that it would be a disaster for Australian industry if other countries discriminated against our exports because the Prime Minister refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol.In conclusion, the decisions of this government, in my view, are driven by a triumph of stubborn ideology and self-interest over rational analysis. This is nowhere better illustrated than by its statements and policies regarding greenhouse gas emissions, against which I have been campaigning ever since I was elected to this House in 1998 as the member for Lowe.12:32:0010235Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—I rise to support the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002. However, I cannot say that I support the government's overall approach to the renewable energy sector or, indeed, its environmental credentials. This bill amends the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 by clarifying certain definitions within the act to improve its effectiveness and efficiency. The original act passed in 2000 established the mandatory renewable energy target—the MRET. The MRET requires electricity retailers and other large buyers of electricity to increase the amount of electricity purchased from defined renewable energy sources and to demonstrate this each year to the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator. Renewable energy can be defined as any source of energy that can be used without depleting its reserves. These sources include solar, wind, wave, biomass, hydro and tidal energy.In the electricity sector, current use of renewable energy contributes approximately 10.7 per cent to our total energy consumption, most of which is generated from large-scale hydroelectricity schemes. The MRET scheme was designed to increase this by two per cent to 12.7 per cent by the year 2010. The specific target under the act is for the industry to generate an extra 9,500 gigawatt hours per annum of electricity from renewable sources by the year 2010. In his recent evidence to the House of Representatives environment committee, Mr David Rossiter from the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator put that figure into perspective. He described the target as the equivalent of constructing two Snowy Mountains schemes in 10 years. So there is a big job ahead for the electricity industry and that will bring with it challenges and opportunities.In the original act, the MRET is coupled with a scheme of renewable energy certificates. Each megawatt hour of qualifying electricity is eligible to create one renewable energy certificate. These RECs can then be sold or traded between the generators and wholesale purchasers to meet individual liabilities. Accredited power stations generating power from renewable sources can supply RECs to other generators to cover their liability under the MRET scheme. The aim of the scheme is to accelerate the uptake of renewable energy in grid based applications so as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By stimulating the demand for renewable energy, it also creates a base for the development of commercially competitive renewable energy and potentially gives rise to new export industries meeting the energy demands of growing economies within Asia.It is not yet clear whether any of these aims will be achieved through the legislation as it is currently framed. The amendments before the House are administrative in nature and do not address these important issues. In fact, the evidence so far suggests that the government's MRET will not even deliver an additional two per cent market share for renewable energy. For example, a study undertaken by the Business Council for Sustainable Energy found that, contrary to the goal of a two per cent increase in the market share of renewable based energy by 2010, renewables will struggle to maintain their present market share of total electricity generation. Another report commissioned by Greenpeace analysed the impact of the current MRET of 9,500 gigawatt hours. That target was based on an assumed 2.1 per cent annual growth in the rate of demand for electricity between 1996 and 2010. However, actual growth in electricity demand per year between 1996 and 2000 was much higher, averaging 3.8 per cent, and projections estimate that it may stay at that level throughout the rest of this decade. In those circumstances, the effect of the current MRET will be greatly diluted. This is important to keep in mind because the scheme in the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act represents the only mandatory measure that the Howard government has introduced to address the problem of ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions contributing to worldwide climate change. As far as the government is concerned, this is its flagship program when it comes to reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions so it has to at least be fair dinkum about it. It cannot run around pretending that this is the answer to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions when in reality it is doing no more than maintaining the status quo. I notice that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage in his second reading speech foreshadows an independent and thorough review of the act under section 162 of the current act to commence in January 2003. In that review, the government needs to look objectively at whether the scheme is achieving the results it heralded in the year 2000 in terms of greenhouse gas reduction and the establishment of a robust and competitive renewable energy industry. There are very good reasons for getting this right. The renewable energy industry has the potential to offer Australia very significant benefits. Not only is it capable of providing significant opportunities in terms of economic and employment growth, particularly in regional areas; it also has the potential to assist Australia to move closer towards meeting international expectations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to achieve other environmental outcomes.The Labor Party have already committed themselves to increasing the mandatory renewable energy target to five per cent by 2010. We have come to that position because it has been shown in research, such as that produced by Origin Energy, that moving to generate five per cent of electricity needs from renewable sources would cut greenhouse gas emissions by one per cent, boost the local renewables industry and have a negligible effect on the cost of electricity. It is good policy and has widespread support from important organisations such as Environment Business Australia and individual players within the renewables sector. The Labor Party have also promised to ratify the Kyoto protocol and continue to urge the government to stop simply pandering to the United States and instead to make sure that Australia is part of this important international agenda which will affect our economy and the competitiveness of our industries whether we like it or not. Once again, the ALP have stood up to be counted on this issue while the government has failed to show any leadership at all. The government has missed an important opportunity to show leadership on climate change and a genuine commitment to growing the local renewable energy industry. The government is all over the place on this issue. The minister's second reading speech talks about the importance of `clarifying definitions from the standpoint of investors in renewable energy'. But the government continues to send mixed or weak signals to the energy industry and investors. For example, on the one hand the government says, `We won't ratify Kyoto,' but, on the other hand, it says, `We will meet our Kyoto targets.' What is that telling business in Australia?Australian industry has to meet the targets set under the Kyoto protocol with none of the market mechanisms available to companies in ratifying nations that introduce flexibility and make those targets easier to meet—things like emissions trading, the clean development mechanism and the joint initiative scheme. These measures not only help companies to meet their carbon reduction targets but also offer commercial opportunities to Australian companies, especially those in a position to export to the expanding Asian energy markets. The government is being incredibly short-sighted and the Australian business community is paying the price.Another mixed signal is that, on the one hand, the minister said in his speech that the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and the MRET are a critical plank in the government's greenhouse response, but the COAG energy market review panel, chaired by former Liberal minister Warwick Parer, has recommended that the MRET be abolished altogether. This is at a time when we need to be encouraging massive new investment in innovative energy technologies. Added to all of this confusion within the government is the status of the Australian Greenhouse Office. Not so long ago the government was boasting about establishing the world's first and only government agency dedicated to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Since then the government has slashed funding to the AGO—a fall of $30 million or 45 per cent from 2001-03. It has allowed six months to go by without even advertising for a new chief executive officer to replace the CEO and her deputy, who both resigned earlier this year. This is yet another example of the government failing to show leadership in an area which the Prime Minister himself identified as a priority in the Governor-General's speech to open this term of parliament. The speech states:The government's ongoing funding package of $1 billion over five years for greenhouse gas abatement is among the largest by any government in the world. These funds are assisting to develop strong government industry and government-community partnerships that are beginning to reduce the rate of greenhouse gas emissions.Except none of that is happening. The money is not being spent, emissions keep on rising and businesses are missing out on access to the funding and assistance that the AGO was supposed to administer. The corporate sector and investment in new technology are the keys to finding low cost solutions to rising greenhouse gas emissions. But how can you garner business support and get them to spend money in the areas that are needed unless they are getting strong signals from the government about where we are heading on these issues? The government has been spooked by the Americans on Kyoto and as a result has failed to see the opportunities that exist in this area for industry development and job creation. According to the studies that have been done, the renewable energy sector has great potential for job growth in Australia, particularly in rural and regional Australia. This was reinforced by the submission prepared by the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator for the inquiry of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Heritage into jobs in the environment sector. The opening statement of that submission confirms that `electricity from renewable sources constitutes a growing area of employment in the environment sector'. David Rossiter from the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator explained in his evidence before the committee that to meet the current MRET a capital investment of around $6 billion would be needed before 2010. This would be split between existing generators improving their efficiency, new projects based on biomass wastes and emerging industries in the areas of wind, solar, photovoltaics et cetera. His estimate of the jobs to be created in the period up to 2010 is 45,000 construction jobs of variable duration and 3,000 permanent jobs. Apart from employment, there are other potential benefits that could flow from renewable energy projects. Biomass has already been identified as an important source of renewable energy and it is one of the cheapest sources. It is possible that revegetation projects to mitigate dryland salinity in areas such as the Murray-Darling Basin and the wheat belt of Western Australia could produce large amounts of biomass suitable for bioenergy. Figures from the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory suggest that, for every megawatt of wood waste biomass electricity generation capacity installed, 4.9 jobs are created. Australian figures put that figure slightly lower but it is still clearly an area worth encouraging. It keeps coming back to the signals that the government is sending to investors and the business community. When they are making large long-term investment decisions, they need to know what direction this country is heading. If the government says it is serious about addressing climate change through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and backs that up with action, such as signing the Kyoto protocol and supporting the Australian Greenhouse Office, then we will see more businesses switching their focus to pick up on the new opportunities in this sector. It is not just new industries that are struggling as a result of the government's failure to lead. Existing companies are seeing opportunities to export their products and services overseas under threat as the government continues its stubborn and blindly pro US stance on the Kyoto protocol. A recent paper prepared by Environment Business Australia—The business case for ratification of the Kyoto protocol—stated that the organisation `is concerned at the extent of its membership contemplating expatriation of their operations offshore in order to exploit carbon credit revenue denied them if they remain domiciled in Australia'. Is this a great new industry development policy from the Howard government—chase your best and brightest overseas so that they can take their technological innovations with them?John White of the company Global Renewables spelled out the threat not just to companies like his own trying to compete in the renewables sector but also to our traditional export industries, such as coalmining, at the recent Environment Business Australia conference in Sydney. He raised the very real prospect of Japan imposing a carbon tax, which would apply to Australia's coal exports to that country. In those circumstances, Japanese companies would be looking for carbon credits to bundle with their coal purchases to offset the carbon tax. Where are those carbon credits going to come from if we do not ratify Kyoto? This is expanded upon in the Environment Business Australia paper, The business case for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol:... there have been signals from a number of Japanese and European investors that they will not invest in renewable energy, carbon sink, or land remediation projects in Australia if they cannot expatriate Kyoto compliant credits to retire against their forthcoming Kyoto Protocol obligations. Trading entities are also seeking to purchase Australian products with bundled Kyoto compliant emissions reductions. Failure to ratify removes our ability to provide such bundled products impacting trading relationships. It is ironic that Australia is poised to lose market share for our exports that contain a high level of embedded energy through our inability to bundle home grown carbon credits to the sale of these products. Australia should be encouraging the industries of the future and protecting our traditional export industries by developing and marketing the technology that will give both the edge internationally.For example, the CSIRO and other researchers from both the public and private sectors are developing clean coal technology that will allow Australia to maintain its competitive advantage in terms of low-cost electricity while at the same time meeting its obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Initiatives such as coal gasification and supercritical conventional coal plants, such as the Callide power station just south of my electorate, need to be supported to reduce our domestic carbon levels and also to enable us to protect our carbon intensive exports. Trading partners will be looking for carbon credits to bundle with our high carbon exports, and leading technology in the clean use of coal is something that Australian exporters can include in those important negotiations to offset carbon penalties attached to our coal.The Howard government is doing the Australian business community and their employees a grave disservice by failing to understand the international pressures that we are now dealing with. Speaker after speaker at the EBA conference emphasised that, like it or not, ratify or not, the impacts of the Kyoto protocol are unavoidable, so Australia needs to be in there playing the game, not standing on the sidelines.The scheme that we are debating today is a crucial element in this country's challenge of facing up to, and benefiting from, the post-Kyoto environment. It does not go far enough, because it is not part of a broader, strategic understanding of the opportunities that exist for industry development and employment growth in this area. We are supporting the government on this bill but call on the government to make the necessary changes to the scheme that the 2003 review identifies so that this country keeps moving forward on the use of renewable energy and the development of clean, green technology.12:48:0010239Emerson, Craig, MPDr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—This debate on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002 gives me the opportunity to reflect on the philosophy underlying the whole challenge of meeting the global greenhouse gas problem and on the ways that the government and Labor have approached this issue. I go back to 1989, which was the release date of a major statement on the environment, Our country, our future, by the then Hawke Labor government. That environment statement dealt with World Heritage listing, mining in Antarctica and a range of other very important environmental issues, and for the first time put clearly on the agenda the challenge of dealing with the greenhouse effect here in Australia and globally.That document committed the government to playing its part in the global effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, citing the scientific evidence that was available even at that time—more than 12 years ago. There was a very clear caveat in the commitment made by the Hawke government in terms of contributing to the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. That caveat was that nothing would be done that weakened Australia's international competitiveness.From those early days, Labor had recognised that there is no inevitability at all in a clash between jobs and the environment. It really should be a case of jobs for the environment and jobs and the environment, not a choice between the two, yet that is the approach of the present government. It always portrays environmental issues as costing jobs. The pursuit of environmental goals, from the point of view of the coalition government, inevitably leads to job losses. It is in the government's interests to portray it that way, because that is the way that this government operates. It is always pitting one side against the other, one goal against another. Not long after the statement in question—Our Country Our Future, in 1989—the then Prime Minister Bob Hawke organised a very small roundtable discussion for community representatives to discuss the challenge of ensuring compatibility between jobs and the environment. I recall it clearly because I helped organise the meeting, and in attendance were Rob Bain from the National Association of Forest Industries; Lauchlan McIntosh, who then represented the Australian Mining Industry Council; Judy Lambert from the Wilderness Society; Phillip Toyne from the Australian Conservation Foundation; and Simon Crean, who was then head of the ACTU. That meeting was small but very productive and it spawned the entire process that became the process of ecologically sustainable development—a series of roundtable meetings that, in the end, involved some 90 organisations around this country. Although it was an exhaustive and an exhausting process, it helped instil in the decision making of public servants and governments the notion that we can have jobs and the environment, that any development should be ecologically sustainable. It is a notion that says that we should be living off the environmental interest, not eating into environmental capital, and it is a notion that says we should not, as a community, be imposing environmental burdens on future communities by our activities today. Since the election of this government, the notion of ecologically sustainable development has been swept off the table completely. That is a great pity because, as I said a moment ago, the government wishes to pit the environment against job creation. There is, in fact, no inevitability at all in such a conflict and I think it is incumbent on any government of any political persuasion to embrace the philosophy of jobs for the environment, not jobs against the environment.In the philosophy of that time and in greenhouse parlance, there was a series of initiatives called insurance initiatives and others called no regrets policies. I would like to add to that lexicon the notion of low regrets policies—that is, while there may be some financial cost associated with, for example, the setting of targets or some of the policies that can be implemented by governments, they do make good sense because they mean that we are not borrowing the environment from future generations. I was dismayed to learn that the Parer review on the national electricity market actually recommended the abolition of the mandated renewable energy target. The value of that target is that it focuses the community's attention on the challenge of coming up with viable renewable energy sources. We on the Labor side are now advocating a lifting of that target to five per cent. In the same way as caveats were applied back in 1989, I think it is totally legitimate for Labor to be saying—and I do say—that, in pursuit of the five per cent mandated renewable energy target, we should not be imposing large additional costs on consumers of electricity who are low-income consumers.We on the Labor side in fact opposed the GST, as is well known, and at the last election we brought a policy before the public to take the GST off electricity. Why did we do this? We did this because we recognised that electricity, amongst all the goods and services consumed by families, is consumed disproportionately by low-income families. Therefore, you would get the biggest bang for your buck in terms of equity by removing the GST from electricity. Labor came to that conclusion based on good, solid quantitative analysis based on household expenditure survey work. Therefore, to be consistent and to be fair, it is valid for Labor to be indicating that we would not wish to see large new additional imposts as a result of the pursuit of a larger mandated renewable energy target being imposed on low-income consumers in this country. That is why the pursuit of mandated renewable energy targets should be focused on renewable energy sources for the future and the emerging technologies. Very importantly, from a Labor perspective, it should also be focused on clean coal technologies. We see a future for coal. We see a big future for coal in a greenhouse friendly Australia. But that big future for coal is a future for clean coal. There are exciting developments in clean coal technology. We support those workers who are employed in the industry and their families, who depend on coalmining in this country. We believe that a great deal more can be done and should be done to ensure that our coal production and the export quality of the coal is such that it is clean and minimises greenhouse gas emissions.We are absolutely bemused as to how the government can justify a decision not to sign the Kyoto protocol but at the same time commit to achieving Australia's Kyoto target. That, to us, is the worst of all possible worlds. If the government is right—and we do not believe it is—and if the government's argument that achieving the target would lead to job losses is correct, then why would you say, `We are going to achieve the target anyway but we are not going to ratify the Kyoto protocol'? We are saying that it will not lead to job losses, which we know the government actually believes. In reality, it is railing against any international organisation—that is the purpose of this. Its political purpose is to say, `We are not going to sign up to any international agreements at all, but we are going to meet the targets.'The consequences of that have been very adverse for Australian businesses because Australian businesses are now looking overseas and overseas businesses are saying, `Australia is not a good place to locate when many countries of the world have signed the Kyoto protocol.' Why do they say this? Because they will not be able to trade in greenhouse credits. Foreign investment could be coming into this country in terms of growing trees—that is, greenhouse sinks. Australia is a great place to grow trees; we used to have a lot more trees. Our land will sustain a lot more trees. If we did grow more trees and if Australia was a signatory to and had ratified the Kyoto protocol, they would be counted as greenhouse credits.Projects are being put on hold in Australia involving foreign investment in the growing of trees in this country because the government will not ratify the Kyoto protocol. There are lost opportunities there not only for investment but also for the environment. So the government are saying, `We are not going to ratify the Kyoto protocol. We are going to risk the environment of this country. We are going to pose an additional hazard to the global environment and we are going to deter investment in carbon sinks. We are going to deter investment in the growing of trees.'I visited the BP site in Sydney recently, and there are as many people in BP employed in the research and development of photovoltaic cells as there are employed in oil refinery operations. Such is the great potential of this country to create jobs for the environment, not jobs against the environment. So if the government would embrace that philosophy, if it would ratify the Kyoto protocol, this country would be in a much stronger position—we would remain internationally competitive, we would attract additional foreign investment and we would improve our environment through foreign investment in carbon sinks.In closing I make this prediction: in the next few months the government will ratify the Kyoto protocol. It will swallow its pride and its reluctance to do anything multilateral by signing any international agreement. It sought to extract the maximum political advantage out of beating up on the United Nations and any other international organisation it possibly could in its agenda of instilling fear in this country and capitalising on that fear. It will swallow its pride. Why? Because investment in these industries is being stymied in this country. The industries themselves—businesses both Australian and foreign owned—are putting pressure on the government to ratify the Kyoto protocol. This is a great opportunity for the government to swallow its pride and ratify that agreement in the coming weeks. 13:01:0010242Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I rise to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2002. My colleague the member for Oxley regards the proposition that the government will sign on the dotted line of the Kyoto protocol as being a very big call. I would think that would be the case as well, because we know just how tardy this government has been when it has come to the question of signing up to the Kyoto protocol, which most of the responsible nations in the world have done, save of course for the United States—the sheriff says to the deputy sheriff, `We'll lead; you follow.' It is yet another example of core decisions being taken in the White House and in the US Congress, and Australia following.What is the line that we can draw between them? There is an argument that the US has a better understanding of this, because it has stood outside the proven science—or what those other countries that have signed up to the Kyoto protocol would argue and this opposition would argue are relatively reasonable levels of CO2 emissions related to the greenhouse effect. It is not too difficult to understand the fundamental science. There has been a series of key questions about the rapidity of the impacts of that; there has been a series of key questions about how governments should properly react to the challenge faced by the greenhouse effects from CO2, methane and other emissions.There have also been some serious questions in that context from a number of scientists, the most noteworthy in Australia being Professor Ian Plimer. He has done so in his most recent book entitled A Short History About Planet Earth. It is short, it is a history and it is about planet earth, and it contains a series of arguments about the science of the greenhouse effect. He has some demurrers. The essential one argues that, if you are going to look at this contextually, the context is not simply from the start of the Industrial Revolution, from the great changeover from the agricultural era, running through to the end of the Middle Ages and into the great mercantile period, when the Portuguese and the Spanish ruled this planet; but you move forward further, past the age of the Dutch navigators and on to the United Kingdom and the laying down of the fundamentals of the modern industrialised state.We know that during that period the pollution created in England was massive. We know what environmental degradation was done in the Soviet bloc, all of the Eastern bloc and in communist China. We know about the vast pollution of the atmosphere that occurred. We know about the problems caused by acid and sulfurous rain and by inappropriate practices. We know about the vast amounts of money, the rivers of money, that need to be poured into reclaiming the environmental capacity of the Eastern bloc.We also know that a lot of the developing countries during the 70 years that the communists ran the Soviet bloc went down the communist road not because they wanted what communism was essentially offering ideologically but because they wanted the fast development that had happened in Russia. The key beacon for them was that industrialisation could be compressed into a very short period of time. Whatever cost that had on the environment was not a cost of concern to Soviet Russia; it was not a cost of concern to anyone in the Eastern bloc. The world will pay the cost of that damage and ravage.We know that there has been an attempt in the West, particularly over the last two decades plus, to claw back the environmental damage and ravage that has been done to a whole range of things. Under Bob Carr's state Labor government there has been the clean-up of the Parramatta River and of Sydney Harbour. There is concerted action at state level by Labor governments, with New South Wales taking the lead, to reclaim our environmental heritage, to make this a cleaner and better place and to ensure through the clean air act that more will be done. We saw similar action from the former federal Labor government when it took the leading part in addressing some of the fundamental problems of air pollution and other difficulties created by industrialisation. One of those problems has come to pass already. No-one could have expected to totally believe our scientific advisers when they said that, if you take specific action in relation to chlorofluorocarbons, you can within a period of 20 to 30 years fundamentally change the damaging impact on the ozone layer and our atmosphere through what is being generated out of our refrigerators and from the propellants used for aerosols and so on. They said that you can do something real. Under Labor, Australia helped to lead the charge to clean up CFCs. A report earlier this year or late last year indicated that most of the work done in that area had been done successfully. But you need a larger ambit. This bill in its intention, schedules and explanatory memorandum is essentially one of cleaning up; it is essentially administrative. It is not the most sparkling or the most riveting piece of legislation, but you take whatever cloth is there and reshape it in a certain way.I note the importance of a number of matters that the bill deals with in regard to the accreditation of power stations in terms of their eligible renewable energy baseline. What the regulator does and how the regulator goes about finding information is similar to some other regulators at the moment seeking identifiable information about whether certain things are happening or not happening in a country far away from us. If you have a clear understanding of how the industry runs, you can readily identify where there are problems and where people are walking around the renewable energy aspects of the bills which have already been put through this House. In relation to the bottom line provision that in future we would commit to at least two per cent of our electricity coming from renewables, we know that we can do more. We know that in the state of New South Wales some people have voluntarily signed up to accessing green electricity at a higher cost to themselves. We also know that the person who has run that campaign and who has briefed our caucus committee about two parliaments ago is an extremely able person. He came from the United States and is now an Australian citizen. That campaign has worked very well, because the state Labor government did with that issue what we did in government. We did two things: firstly, we looked towards people's altruism, their sense that they could in fact act against their own interest for the greater and better interests of both the environment and the nation; and, secondly, that there is a larger cause than simply us as individuals, and that in combination with others or as a community we can act together to really achieve significant things.In the second reading speech there was a question of what is an eligible renewable energy source, what is an accredited power station and what is a relevant acquisition of electricity. The question of eligibility for renewable energy sources is extremely important. Here, I align myself with a speech made by the member for Bonython, who laid out in his consideration of this legislation some of the ramifications of not just what is happening now but running through to the future. The second reading speech went to this key question:With the renewable energy target ramping up sharply in the coming years, it is highly likely that there will be considerable growth in the number of accredited power stations and the amount of renewable energy certificates that will be traded or acquitted.Within the context of renewable energy, one of the key issues is biomass. The argument is that, whatever the biomass, you could create industries in regional Australia—and it would be a question of creating an industry if you went down this track—based on biomass. That biomass could be a proportion of what is on the forest floor, plantation timber cut for a particular purpose or simply crops grown to greater effect, probably more readily and with a much quicker life cycle than trees. Although growing a biomass and then burning it might be described by some as mediaeval in approach—in fact, the member for Bonython argued that this could just be creating an incinerator industry in Australia—a number of people, particularly a senior expert in the Hunter, have argued that there are significant employment and regional benefits in going down this track. These possibilities need to be looked at extremely carefully. There are other sources of renewable energy. We know what has happened with the funding for solar power panels. As for wind power generation, the member for Bonython put forward a significant argument. While the Dutch were great navigators in the 15th century, at home they had problems with not only their dikes but also their agricultural industry. They came up with a fabulous invention, the windmill, which worked extremely successfully. It has been tarted up a bit since the 15th century, but its fundamentals are the same. What has been found, not only in Holland but also in the United States, Germany and indeed here, is that the early windmills (1) were not particularly good, (2) did not generate particularly good power, and (3) had significant mechanical problems, which meant that they had to be replaced. The windmills used in Australia were in fact provided by multinationals, so they did not have any Australian components, let alone any Australian involvement.One of the issues the CSIRO is currently looking at is that if you do not put these things in the right place they are not going to work anyway. Southern California is in desperate straits because they did not put in power stations. They did not build new coal-fired power stations or provide hydroelectricity, as they did further up the Colorado River. They did not provide for southern California's future power demands—which of course would have been a bit hard to predict, because the growth in demand has been explosive. You can see their fundamental mistake if you drive through southern California, through Orange County or on the way up to Colorado or Nevada: you drive through vast fields of extremely large windmills. I think most of them are the earlier types, not the more streamlined ones that are now being presented in Australia. It was a fundamental mistake because wind generation cannot provide base load power. It does not matter that you have the science right in terms of how many windmills you have or where you put them; it is impossible.In Tasmania, renewable energy considerations include the question of whether hydro is a part of that and whether you can in fact link hydro with wind power. There is a series of projects dealing with the possibility that this integration could actually work well. That is for the scientists, researchers and the people practically using this to push forward with.There is a whole other area which is alluded to in the quite practical measures taken in this bill—you just rearrange things so that you can review things better and so that you can see whether things are working—that is, not only the core question of how the renewables are operating within our power stations but also the related question of just how well our power stations are functioning. No-one is going to get away from the fact that, if you are looking at baseload power generation in Australia over the next 10, 20 or 30 years, whether it be in the Hunter or elsewhere, you are going to be up against coal power stations or coal power stations to which we have added because of Labor initiatives. Labor in government targeted the one big new energy source that was important for Australia. Labor in government understood that the development of the North West Shelf was important for us in terms of the liquid natural gas that we could pump out to Japan and the rest of the world. Labor understood that, given our problems with other sources of petroleum products in Australia, the development of natural gas was fundamental and that the natural gas pipelines and fields that had been developed onshore in Australia had to be augmented. Labor policy is looking to the future of where that can continue to be augmented and how you can use gas firing—either gas fired full natural gas power stations, gas assisted or turbo charged coal power stations—to more effect. We know that some of our power stations could be rebuilt at great cost, because significant technical work has been done in the United Kingdom on the way in which the generators in the power stations are burning coal and how they could be used more effectively. The baseline in that scientific data is that if you run those power stations, if you run a coal-fired installation at 700 to 1000°C at a much higher level than we do currently, you get a much cleaner burn in the coal, fewer sulfurous and other emissions and less CO2.It is a big proposition as to how much you take that on board here. When that was first advanced a couple of years ago, I think, on the Science Show by Robyn Williams, the investigations he did indicated that we could just take that technology or go down our own paths with our own power stations to look at whether or not that could work. Simply retro-fitting is very expensive and developing it further is expensive but, in terms of utilising more effectively the resources that we have, we go back to the core of what the member for Bonython was talking about. Is this about renewable energy and the use of renewable energy concerned with the creation of new industries in Australia and the support of those new industries, some of which are based almost fully on multinationals, others of which are based, we know, sometimes, on friends of friends? We have had a few examples of that with this coalition government; we certainly have had that with regard to Manildra and what is happening with ethanol. We also understand that the possibilities here are really about creating more jobs rather than solving the key problem of the greenhouse effect and whether the greenhouse effect can be ameliorated by cutting the emissions of CO2. How would you more effectively do that?The member for Bonython mentioned the significant CSIRO work on clean coal at North Ryde—and I have been to see it. What they have achieved is important, but they are some way from their final point. That final point is to achieve a clean burning coal where sulfurous and CO2 emissions would be dramatically reduced. Our coal industry is important to Australia domestically in terms of our coal-fired power stations and is dramatically important to us in terms of our exports. It is not just clean coal that the CSIRO is working on; it is the different types of material that we are using. Whether it be Victorian brown coal or black anthracites that are being used in other power stations, if you want to reduce greenhouse gases it is fundamentally important to improve the technology and continue to work on it so that our current baseload power stations that are coal fired or coal fired with the assistance of gas firing—which helps to raise the temperature and therefore get a better and more efficient burn and a better use of what we are using—have reductions in CO2 emissions.The key problem of CO2 is how you grab it, trap it and then do something with it. Given all the problems we have had in the past with solving some of this, there might finally be a use for Synroc—apart from talking about how useful it might be! That is said laughingly and ironically, I know, because you would not be trapping CO2 in it; you might be trapping enriched uranium in it or other nuclear waste, but we haven't even done that. But there are mechanisms that have been looked at and will need to be further looked at for trapping either methane or CO2 and then reinjecting it. One mechanism, in fact, is to do it in situ. There has been a new petroleum find at Woodside, 40 kilometres or so off the Ningaloo Reef near Exmouth, which may go ahead in 2006. They are proposing to do three fields by ship anchored at the site and, at the cost of an extra $100 million, to take the CO2 and reinject it in situ so it does not cause a problem in the first place. That is the sort of thing we need to do with our coal-fired power stations, because the energy we are going to use will not all be renewable and we will need to ensure the clean and efficient use of the energy sources which will continue to dominate. Debate (on motion by Mrs May) adjourned.Main Committee adjourned at 1.22 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing10247The following answers to questions were circulated:10247(Question No. 938)93810247McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 19 September 2002:(1) What is the basis for the detention of (a) David Hicks and (b) Mamdouh Habib by the authorities of the United States at Guantanamo Bay.(2) Did Justice Colleen Kottar-Kotelly refer to rights that the two men may have under international law; if so, (a) what were those rights referred to by the Judge and (b) are Australian authorities assisting the two men to pursue those rights.(3) Has advice been obtained as to whether the two men have committed a breach of Australian law; if so, is it intended to press any prosecution against the two individuals by Australian authorities.10247Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Mr Hicks is being held in military custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr Hicks was captured in a conflict zone by the Northern Alliance in December 2001. It is alleged that Mr Hicks has undertaken training with Al Qaida. The United States has said, among other things, that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are unlawful combatants and, as such, may be held for at least the duration of the hostilities. (b) Mr Habib is being held in military custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Mr Habib was detained in Pakistan in early October 2001. It is understood that he was subsequently moved to Egypt before being transferred to United States custody. It is alleged that Mr Habib has undertaken training with Al Qaida in Afghanistan. The US has said, among other things, that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are unlawful combatants and, as such, may be held for at least the duration of the hostilities.(2) Yes, in relation to Mr Hicks. (Mr Habib was not a party to Rasul v. Bush, which was handed down by the United States District Court on 30 July 2002.) In her decision, Justice Kottar-Kotelly found that the Guantanamo Bay military base is outside the sovereign territory of the US and therefore the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the claims made by the petitioners - Mr Hicks and two United Kingdom citizens. Justice Kottar-Kotelly explained that her decision solely related to the jurisdictional issue and should not be read as stating that the petitioners do not have some form of rights under international law. (a) Justice Kottar-Kotelly said that `the government recognizes that these aliens fall within the protections of certain provisions of international law and that diplomatic channels remain an ongoing and viable means to address the claims raised by these aliens'. Justice Kottar-Kotelly did not specify which provisions of international law she was referring to. Mr Hicks and Mr Habib are held in US military custody. Their treatment is therefore governed by US domestic law and international law as set out in international instruments to which the US is a party. (b) As stated above in paragraph 2(a), Justice Kottar-Kotelly did not specify any rights under international law. The Australian Government has indicated to the US that, at this stage, while investigations are ongoing, we regard it as appropriate that Mr Habib and Mr Hicks remain in US military custody along with the other detainees. The Australian Government has an ongoing dialogue with the US and is cooperating with the US on a range of levels, including on the issue of law enforcement. Justice Kottar-Kotelly noted in her judgment that, `at least for Petitioner David Hicks in the Rasul case, diplomatic efforts by the Australian government have already commenced'. Australian authorities have been given access to Mr Hicks and Mr Habib, have made enquiries about the welfare and treatment of both men, and have contacted both families to advise them of the men's welfare. Australian officials who visited Mr Habib and Mr Hicks in May 2002 confirmed that both men are being detained in safe and humane conditions. (3) In both cases, investigations are on-going. Australian authorities are working as quickly as they can to determine whether any offence has been committed against Australian law. The Government always expected that this process could take some time, given the number of complicating factors in these investigations, including complex legal and difficult evidentiary issues. The Government cannot comment further on the investigations due to the risk of prejudicing the investigations or the charges that may be laid. Neither the US nor Australia are currently in a position to commence a prosecution against either man. 10248(Question No. 971)97110248Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 October 2002:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 841 (Hansard, 25 September 2002, page 6990) concerning visits of Government representatives to Kurdistan, (a) who were the representatives, (b) when did they travel to Kurdistan and (c) what was the purpose of the visits.(2) Has the Kurdish Government, non-government organisations (NGOs) or the media relayed to Australian authorities in Baghdad the decision to not remit 13% of total revenue from the oil for food program.(3) Have the Kurdish Government, NGOs and the media repeatedly claimed that the United Nations Inter-Agency Humanitarian Programme will not provide them with specialised anti-cancer medicines to deal with the lasting affects of Iraqs Al-Anfal campaign in which 100 000 Kurds were gassed.(4) Is the phrase three northern governorates of northern Iraq used in his answer the preferred description of Saddam Husseins Baathist regime for the Kurdish areas of Northern Iraq.(5) Does the Government have a policy of not recognising the Kurdish authorities within the boundaries of a federal Iraq.10248Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Mr Perry Head visited northern Iraq on 25 and 26 May 1993 when he was First Secretary with the Embassy in Ankara. The purpose of the visit was general familiarisation, as well as monitoring refugee and humanitarian issues, and the operation of Australian NGOs and other Australian personnel in the region.(2) I am unaware of the decision referred to in this question. (3) I am unaware of these specific claims, although I am aware of the report referred to in the reply to Question No. 841 (Hansard, 25 September 2002). I am also aware of a review conducted by the United Nations in January 2002 which noted that there had been an improvement in the availability of essential drugs and basic supplies in the three northern governorates in the previous two years.(4) The term “three northern governorates” is the name most commonly used by the United Nations to refer to the governorates of Arbil, Dihouk and Suleimaniyeh. The term “three northern governorates” appears to be used rarely in official Iraqi Government statements. (5) The Australian Government does not recognise any of the Kurdish “Parliaments”, “Governments” or “Congresses” - whether located in Iraq or elsewhere - and does not accord their representatives any special status. 10248(Question No. 972)97210248Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 October 2002:(1) Is the Government aware of British geneticist Christine Godsens documentation of the extent and legacy of the Saddam Hussein regimes Al-Anfal campaign in which 100 000 Kurds were allegedly gassed by the Iraqi regime.(2) Has the Australian Government examined Dr Godsens studies about the long term effects of Aflatoxin, gas and other chemical and biological weapons used against Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.(3) Was the Al-Anfal campaign carried out mainly by killings through poison gas.(4) How many Kurdish civilians does the Australian Government estimate were killed by round ups at night and mass executions in the Al Anfal campaign.(5) Is he able to say what other effects were identified by Dr Godsens studies of the United Nations Special Commission Inspection team in relation to mutations and levels of sterility in Kurdish civilians during the Al-Anfal campaign. (6) Is there evidence of wide spread liver damage amongst survivors.(7) Is this the long term medical effect of the biological weapon Aflatoxin.10249Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The work of Christine Godsens has been widely reported on the internet.(2) The areas within my Ministerial portfolio have not examined Dr Godsens' report.(3) Although precise details are impossible to confirm, public evidence, including the CIA report on Iraq WMD (published in October 2002), suggests that the majority of killings during the Al-Anfal campaign were carried out using conventional weapons.(4) It is impossible to verify an exact figure for deaths in the Al Anfal campaign. Human Rights Watch estimates that between 50,000 and 100,000 were killed in the entire duration of the campaign.(5) No.(6) No reliable statistics are available on liver damage amongst Al Anfal survivors. Preliminary research indicates that there has been a rise in the incidence of diseases, mutations and cancers Iraq-wide, and not just in Kurdish areas. (7) Liver damage is one of the possible medical effects from exposure to Aflatoxins.10249(Question No. 1027)102710249Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 21 October 2002:Further to the answer to question No. 697 (Hansard, 14 October 2002, page 7519) concerning Migrant Resource Centres, for each of the last five years what was the total number of (a) humanitarian refugee stream migrants and (b) former stream migrants born in English Proficiency (EP) group 3 and 4 countries, settled in each area covered by the respective Migrant Resource Centres and Migrant Service Agencies.10249Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HardgraveCK6MoretonLPMinister for Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The following tables show the numbers of Refugee and Humanitarian entrants and Family Stream migrants born in EP 3 and 4 countries settling in Migrant Resource Centre and Migrant Service Agency catchment areas for each of the last five years. For each year, the period of analysis was 1 July to 30 June. The data in these tables was extracted from the Settlement Database on 9 November 2002. The Settlement Database is a dynamic database. Collection of some data is not mandatory at visa or arrival stage and may be added to the Settlement Database later on. Records are either added or updated daily. Updated statistical data is extracted on a weekly basis. As a result data provided for any stated period may change depending on when the statistical data was extracted. MRC/MSA 1997-98Refugee & HumanitarianFamily EP 3 & 4TotalAuburn396392788Baulkham Hills/Holroyd/Parramatta4976481145Blacktown389215604Botany135380515Canterbury Bankstown30111041405Fairfield8019381739Illawarra140105245Inner West 119436555Liverpool596249845Macarthur69109178Migrant Network Services240740980Newcastle Hunter Region4860108St George145568713Geelong6442106Gippsland151631Inner Western Region 440471911Migrant Information Centre 301695996North East 3826431025Northern Metropolitan482459941North West Region285405690South Central Region299499798South Eastern Region 6075841191Westgate Region 5476130ACCESS Inc 97101198Cairns45660Multicultural Development Association5905261116Townsville162238South Australia7386121350Northern Suburbs578416994South Metropolitan 360366726Northern Tasmania271744Southern Tasmania8723110Central Australia 077Canberra & Queanbeyan1092033120Total94111218321594MRC/MSA 1998-99Refugee & HumanitarianFamily EP 3 & 4TotalAuburn471337808Baulkham Hills/Holroyd/Parramatta6307171347Blacktown468231699Botany150350500Canterbury Bankstown33111371468Fairfield10609762036Illawarra166102268Inner West 125439564Liverpool7913221113Macarthur76102178Migrant Network Services2178351052Newcastle Hunter Region5058108St George236683919Geelong7960139Gippsland549Inner Western Region 5475621109Migrant Information Centre 3047691073North East 5326401172Northern Metropolitan445411856North West Region366447813South Central Region291534825South Eastern Region 8245791403Westgate Region 8686172ACCESS Inc 9448142Cairns77885Multicultural Development Association6645421206Townsville131326South Australia9996061605Northern Suburbs7983811179South Metropolitan 518385903Northern Tasmania322254Southern Tasmania7625101Central Australia 71118Canberra & Queanbeyan1311923230Total115891268424273MRC/MSA 1999-00Refugee & HumanitarianFamily EP 3 & 4TotalAuburn394291685Baulkham Hills/Holroyd/Parramatta5576341191Blacktown356175531Botany58287345Canterbury Bankstown2509961246Fairfield5986651263Illawarra8475159Inner West 59366425Liverpool619251870Macarthur3191122Migrant Network Services172577749Newcastle Hunter Region144559St George145605750Geelong533689Gippsland1910Inner Western Region 323430753Migrant Information Centre 192604796North East 237481718Northern Metropolitan334385719North West Region247289536South Central Region91342433South Eastern Region 520385905Westgate Region 5188139ACCESS Inc 6347110Cairns104858Multicultural Development Association387433820Townsville71825South Australia5734361009Northern Suburbs6843281012South Metropolitan 307322629Northern Tasmania52227Southern Tasmania432669Central Australia 459Canberra & Queanbeyan791652440Total82691210720376MCR/MSA 2000-01Refugee & HumanitarianFamilyEP 3 & 4TotalAuburn231319550Baulkham Hills/Holroyd/Parramatta386588974Blacktown288165453Botany34258292Canterbury Bankstown2079141121Fairfield4686431111Illawarra10881189Inner West63293356Liverpool568252820Macarthur4697143Migrant Network Services131504635Newcastle Hunter Region225981St George86535621Geelong9935134Gippsland6612Inner Western Region351349700Migrant Information Centre207525732North East286493779Northern Metropolitan245388633North West Region262308570South Central Region107378485South Eastern Region564364928Westgate Region6069129ACCESS Inc5350103Cairns35457Multicultural Development Association507396903Townsville142539South Australia6694341103Northern Suburbs641311952South Metropolitan365298663Northern Tasmania451257Southern Tasmania9830128Central Australia808Canberra & Queanbeyan67163230Total78531158319436MRC/MSA 2001-02Refugee & HumanitarianFamily EP 3 & 4TotalAuburn291253544Baulkham Hills/Holroyd/Parramatta435538973Blacktown216161377Botany29241270Canterbury Bankstown120783903Fairfield4117051116Illawarra67102169Inner West 39289328Liverpool474238712Macarthur137790Migrant Network Services69521590Newcastle Hunter Region87785St George70488558Geelong7946125Gippsland055Inner Western Region 262314576Migrant Information Centre 170590760North East 138477615Northern Metropolitan248338586North West Region213321534South Central Region106344450South Eastern Region 576423999Westgate Region 2979108ACCESS Inc 5494148Cairns126274Multicultural Development Association424398822Townsville162642South Australia6074941101Northern Suburbs411380791South Metropolitan 236268504Northern Tasmania11613129Southern Tasmania8321104Central Australia 639Canberra & Queanbeyan1061902960Total6763127151947810253(Question No. 1045)104510253Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 October 2002:(1) With respect to the Minister's Department and each agency for which the Minister is responsible, what is the total number of (a) male and (b) female staff.(2) In the Minister's Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and how many of each gender have elected to pay additional superannuation contributions. (3) In the Minister's Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff are members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme and how many of each gender have elected to pay (i) additional and (ii) reduced superannuation contributions.(4) In the Minister's Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff have any other form of superannuation.10254Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's questions are as follows:(1) (a) The total number of civilian male staff is 12,402. (b) The total number of civilian female staff is 6,736.(Note: This total number includes ongoing and non-ongoing employees (including casual labour) recorded as `active' or on leave with or without pay).(2) (a) 2,643 are contributing to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. No members have elected to pay additional superannuation contributions. (b) 690 female staff are contributing to the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. No members have elected to pay additional superannuation contributions.(3) (a) 9,263 male staff are contributing to the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. (i) 2,511. (ii) 1,768. (b) 5,388 female staff are contributing to the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme. (i) 1,220. (ii) 1,364.(4) (a) 496 civilian male staff are contributing to other forms of Superannuation Schemes. (b) 658 civilian female staff are contributing to other forms of Superannuation Schemes.10254(Question No. 1051)105110254Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 22 October 2002(1) With respect to the Minister's Department and each agency for which the Minister is responsible, what is the total number of (a) male and (b) female staff.(2) In the Minister's Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff are members of the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and how many of each gender have elected to pay additional superannuation contributions.(3) In the Minister's Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff are members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme and how many of each gender have elected to pay (i) additional and (ii) reduced superannuation contributions.(4) In the Minister's Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff have any other form of superannuation.10254Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The information sought, with effect to 30 June 2002, has been provided by the Department and agencies within my portfolio, as follows:Attorney-General's Department(1) (a) 282 (b) 379(2) (a) 105 (b) 73. Additional contributions - (a) 19 (b) 27(3) (a) 168 (b) 296. (i)(a) 40 (i)(b) 79. (ii)(a) 35 (ii)(b) 99(4) (a) 9 (b) 10Administrative Appeals Tribunal(1) (a) 37 (b) 99(2) (a) 8 (b) 10. Additional contributions - (a) 1 (b) 3 (3) (a) 27 (b) 74. (i)(a) 3 (i)(b) 16. (ii)(a) 10 (ii)(b) 24(4) (a) 2 (b) 15Australian Customs Service(1) (a) 2990 (b) 1899(2) (a) 988 (b) 245. Additional contributions - (a) 255 (b) 69(3) (a) 1966 (b) 1629. (i)(a) 457 (i)(b) 248. (ii)(a) 426 (ii)(b) 429(4) (a) 105 (b) 47Australian Federal Police(1) (a) 2038 (b) 1077(2) (a) 742 (b) 128. Additional contributions - (a) 171 (b) 31(3) (a) 1280 (b) 930. (i)(a) 287 (i)(b) 139. (ii)(a) 993 (ii)(b) 791(4) (a) 16 (b) 19Australian Institute of Criminology & Criminology Research Council(1) (a) 17 (b) 27(2) (a) 1 (b) 3. Additional contributions - (a) 0 (b) 3 (3) (a) 11 (b) 22. (i)(a) 2 (i)(b) 7. (ii)(a) 2 (ii)(b) 11(4) (a) 5 (b) 2Australian Law Reform Commission(1) (a) 8 (b) 19(2) (a) 0 (b) 1. Additional contributions - (a) 0 (b) 0(3) (a) 2 (b) 2. (i)(a) 0 (i)(b) 1. (ii)(a) 0 (ii)(b) 0(4) (a) 6 (b) 16Australian Security Intelligence Organisation(1) (a) 376 (b) 262(2) (a) 121 (b) 41. Additional contributions - (a) 40 (b) 18(3) (a) 224 (b) 206. (i)(a) 65 (i)(b) 44. (ii)(a) 44 (ii)(b) 44(4) (a) 31 (b) 15Austrac(1) (a) 25 (b) 35(2) (a) 5 (b) 4. Additional contributions - (a) 1 (b) 0(3) (a) 20 (b) 31. (i)(a) 1 (i)(b) 0. (ii)(a) 3 (ii)(b) 17(4) (a) 1 (b) 1CrimTrac(1) (a) 22 (b) 13(2) (a) 5 (b) 0. Additional contributions - (a) 0 (b) 0 (3) (a) 15 (b) 13. (i)(a) 11 (i)(b) 9. (ii)(a) 4 (ii)(b) 4(4) (a) 2 (b) 0Family Court of Australia(1) (a) 235 (b) 433(2) (a) 38 (b) 46. Additional contributions - (a) 7 (b) 15 (3) (a) 165 (b) 376. (i)(a) 49 (i)(b) 82. (ii)(a) 32 (ii)(b) 98(4) (a) 32 (b) 11Federal Court of Australia(1) (a) 150 (b) 231(2) (a) 17 (b) 16. Additional contributions - (a) 6 (b) 8 (3) (a) 77 (b) 119. (i)(a) 22 (i)(b) 36. (ii)(a) 27 (ii)(b) 32(4) (a) 56 (b) 96Federal Magistrates Service(1) (a) 8 (b) 43(2) (a) 1 (b) 2. Additional contributions - (a) 0 (b) 2(3) (a) 7 (b) 41. (i)(a) 0 (i)(b) 9. (ii)(a) 3 (ii)(b) 16(4) (a) 0 (b) 0High Court of Australia(1) (a) 22 (b) 54(2) (a) 5 (b) 7. Additional contributions - (a) 1 (b) 3(3) (a) 16 (b) 39. (i)(a) 6 (i)(b) 13. (ii)(a) 3 (ii)(b) 9(4) (a) 1 (b) 8Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission(1) (a) 34 (b) 72(2) (a) 6 (b) 6. Additional contributions - (a) 2 (b) 2 (3) (a) 22 (b) 55. (i)(a) 2 (i)(b) 13. (ii)(a) 8 (ii)(b) 27(4) (a) 6 (b) 11Insolvency Trustee Service Australia(1) (a) 114 (b) 133(2) (a) 41 (b) 20. Additional contributions - (a) 12 (b) 4 (3) (a) 68 (b) 94. (i)(a) 16 (i)(b) 14. (ii)(a) 15 (ii)(b) 33(4) (a) 5 (b) 19National Crime Authority(1) (a) 147 (b) 144(2) (a) 29 (b) 11. Additional contributions - (a) 8 (b) 6 (3) (a) 105 (b) 109. (i)(a) 24 (i)(b) 31. (ii)(a) 27 (ii)(b) 36(4) (a) 13 (b) 24National Native Title Tribunal(1) (a) 92 (b) 182(2) (a) 8 (b) 2. Additional contributions - (a) 3 (b) 2 (3) (a) 77 (b) 158. (i)(a) & (b) The reporting system in the Tribunal is unable to identify how many . (ii)(a) & (b) of each gender have elected to pay additional or reduced superannuation contributions(4) (a) 7 (b) 22Office of Director of Public Prosecutions(1) (a) 175 (b) 291(2) (a) 45 (b) 50. Additional contributions - (a) 13 (b) 16 (3) (a) 125 (b) 227. (i)(a) 28 (i)(b) 37. (ii)(a) 44 (ii)(b) 103(4) (a) 14 (b) 20Office of Film and Literature Classification(1) (a) 16 (b) 23(2) (a) 4 (b) 5. Additional contributions - (a) 1 (b) 2 (3) (a) 12 (b) 16. (i)(a) 3 (i)(b) 0. (ii)(a) 2 (ii)(b) 7(4) (a) 0 (b) 2Office of Parliamentary Counsel(1) (a) 19 (b) 26(2) (a) 11 (b) 3. Additional contributions - (a) 3 (b) 0 (3) (a) 8 (b) 23. (i)(a) 5 (i)(b) 0. (ii)(a) 6 (ii)(b) 8(4) (a) 0 (b) 0Office of the Privacy Commissioner(1) (a) 14 (b) 28(2) (a) 3 (b) 4. Additional contributions - (a) 1 (b) 1 (3) (a) 10 (b) 20. (i)(a) 2 (i)(b) 3. (ii)(a) 5 (ii)(b) 14(4) (a) 1 (b) 4Note: Additional superannuation contributions has been interpreted to mean those between 6% and 10% and reduced superannuation contributions interpreted to mean those between 2% and 4%.Staff of the Administrative Review Council are members of the Attorney-General's Department and are included in the entry for the Department. The Federal Court provides staff for the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal, Federal Police Disciplinary Tribunal, and the Copyright Tribunal and hence these organisations are included in the entry for the Federal Court. Staff of the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence are included in the entry for the Australian Federal Police. 10257(Question No. 1058)105810257Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister of Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 October 2002:(1) With respect to the Minister's Department and each agency for which the Minister is responsible, what is the total number of (a) male and (b) female staff.(2) In the Minister's Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff are members of the ommonwealth Superannuation Scheme and how many of each gender have elected to pay additional superannuation contributions.(3) In the Minister's Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff are members of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme and how many of each gender have elected to pay (i) additional and (ii) reduced superannuation contributions.(4) In the Minister's Department and each agency, how many (a) male and (b) female staff have any other form of superannuation.10257Vale, Danna, MPMrs ValeVK6HughesLPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 1314 as at 30 June 2002. (b) 1513 as at 30 June 2002.(2) (a) 388 male staff are Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) members, of which 95 pay additional contributions (ie. contributions between 6 and 10 percent). (b) 244 female staff are CSS members, of which 109 pay additional contributions (ie. contributions between 6 and 10 percent).(3) (a) 841 male staff are Public Sector Superannuation (PSS) Scheme members of which: (i) 259 pay additional contributions (ie. contributions between 6 and 10 percent). (ii) 174 pay reduced contributions (ie. contributions between 2 and 4 percent). (b) 1152 female staff are PSS members of which: (i) 334 pay additional contributions (ie. contributions between 6 and 10 percent). (ii) 260 pay reduced contributions (ie. contributions between 2 and 4 percent).(4) (a) 85. (b) 117.10258(Question No. 1117)111710258Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 14 November 2002:(1) What is the Government's position regarding the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon.(2) What is the Australian Government's position regarding UN resolution 520 which calls on all foreign troops to leave Lebanon.(3) What effects does this presence have on the social and economic welfare of Lebanon.(4) Does the Australian Government recognise the Taif Accord of October 1989, which calls for Syria's redeployment and the withdrawal from the country within a two-year period.(5) Has the Australian Government called on Syria to withdraw in accordance with the Taif Accord.(6) Has the Australian Embassy in Beirut ever raised abuses of Human Rights and Freedom of Speech in relation to the treatment of student protests.(7) Has the Australian Embassy raised the recent closures of opposition station MTV and radio RML with the Lebanese Government.10258Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Syrian troops are in Lebanon at the behest of the Lebanese Government. The Syrian presence is called for in the Ta'if Accord which ended the Lebanese civil war in 1990, and within the terms of the Treaty of Brotherhood, Cooperation and Coordination which has underpinned Lebanese-Syrian relations since the early 1990s.(2) The Australian Government supports United Nations Security Council Resolution 520 and calls for its full implementation.(3) The presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon has been a safeguard against the return to violence and civil unrest in Lebanon. They have assisted with the rehabilitation of important national institutions, such as the army and security services, and the building of the secure environment essential to permit the revival of Lebanon's economy. At the same time, some political and religious groups object to the continuing presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon. The Lebanese Government has begun a process of national dialogue to discuss these concerns.(4) The Australian Government recognises the important role of the Ta'if Accord in ending Lebanon's civil war. It understands that the future of Syrian troops in Lebanon is a matter to be negotiated between the Lebanese and Syrian Governments. (5) No.(6) No.(7) No.10258(Question No. 1134)113410258Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 14 November 2002:Further to the reply to question No. 862 (Hansard, 24 September 2002, page 6877), were any of the 27 taxpayerfunded motor vehicle trips or 16 taxpayer-funded interstate aeroplane trips undertaken by former Senator Dr Malcolm Arthur Colston, between 1 July 1999 and 6 May 2002, for the sole purpose of Dr Colston being required to attend a medical appointment; if so, (a) how many, (b) what were the dates of the medical appointments and (c) where were those appointments.10258Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Minister for Finance and Administration has supplied the following answer to the honourable Member's question:Dr Colston, as a Life Gold Pass holder, is entitled to travel at government expense for non-commercial purposes within Australia up to a maximum of 25 trips per annum. Under the Life Gold Pass entitlement, as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal, Pass holders are not required to provide my Department with advice of the specific purpose of individual trips.10259(Question No. 1135)113510259Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, upon notice, on 14 November 2002:What is the Howard Government doing to encourage more high school students to undertake mathematics and science subjects in preparation for their final school examinations.10259Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NelsonRW5BradfieldLPMinister for Education, Science and Training10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The teaching of science in our schools is of critical importance to Australia's future prosperity. It is vital that we, as a nation, continue to build on our scientific capabilities. Regardless of whether students go on to scientific careers or not, a strong science foundation in the school years is important. Scientifically literate citizens are well equipped to understand change and apply innovative thinking and problem solving skills in their work and personal lives. Due to the importance of science education, and to get an accurate picture of science education in schools, the Government commissioned a report on science education in Australia. The report, The Status and Quality of Teaching and Learning of Science in Australian Schools was released in March 2001. This report found that there are many excellent examples of science education in this country but noted a lack of consistency in quality. The report showed that students who showed an interest in science throughout primary school often felt disappointed by the quality of science education available to them in high school. Lack of engagement, relevance and connection with their interests and experiences were the main reasons cited for this.While it is important that students continue to study science and mathematics to the end of Year 12 and beyond, it is also important that the students who choose not to continue with these subjects gain a good understanding in the compulsory years. For many students, this is the only science or mathematics education they will take with them into their post-school lives. It is important that they gain an understanding they can utilise and build on. In addition, school science and mathematics education also has to prepare students who may later pursue scientific or mathematical careers as well as provide all students with a good general education. By making science and mathematics more relevant for all students, these subjects will also be more interesting for those students who wish to pursue further studies or careers in these fields. If science or mathematics at school is interesting and relevant to students, it is reasonable to expect that more students will consider continuing their studies.The Government has a wide range of initiatives in place to support secondary science teachers to make science more interesting and relevant. These are based on the assumption that excellent teachers are the key to exciting science. There are thousands of dedicated science teachers across the nation challenging the minds of students. These teachers need to be encouraged and supported to keep up with frequent change, new ideas on teaching and scientific discoveries. Recognising the importance of science in schools, the Government has put in place three significant initiatives which are focussed on enhancing Australia's science and mathematics capability. The Higher Education Review has been undertaken throughout 2002 and will be considered in the context of the 2003 Budget. Australia's National Research Priorities were launched by the Prime Minister on 5 December. They are expected to provide a catalyst for the formation of teams and networks of researchers across many disciplines in Australia and internationally -- thereby stimulating further innovation and creativity. The Review of Teaching and Teacher Education is due to report in mid-2003 and is considering how to attract talented young people to teaching and how to develop a culture of innovation in schools. In addition, this Government has a range of significant initiatives in place to secure Australia's future science and mathematics capability.The Government's $3 billion Innovation Action Plan, Backing Australia's Ability has already done a lot to support the enabling sciences by: - providing an additional 2,000 fully-funded undergraduate student places from 2002 for the priority areas of information and communications technology, mathematics and science. This would increase to nearly 5,500 places after four years as students continue in their programmes; - providing $246 million over five years to upgrade systemic infrastructure in order to support world-class research and research training at Australian universities - doubling funding for Australian Research Council Competitive Grants; - establishing new Centres of Excellence in priority research areas; - implementing the Science Lectureship Initiative.. Other key Government initiatives include: - the National Innovation Awareness Strategy that provides $35 million over 5 years principally to raise the awareness of science, innovation and technology; - the Fostering Scientific, Mathematical and Technological Skills and Innovation in Government Schools ($143.5 million over four years); - the $2.5 million National School Science Project that helps to improve the professional skills of, and teaching resources available to, primary and secondary science teachers; - $240,000 for an investigation to identify the key factors that contribute to effective teaching and student learning outcomes in mathematics; - the Quality Teacher Programme which is providing $159.2 million over six years to renew teacher skills and understanding in priority areas including science and mathematics; - provision of close to $2 million for International Mathematics and Science Olympiads; - supported the development of professional standards for mathematics and science teachers; - provided $25,000 to support a National Numeracy Conference hosted by the Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers in Hobart on 4-5 October 2002; - funding of $50,000 to support the 2003 National Youth Science Forum in Canberra; - the new annual Prime Minister's Science Prize for science teachers; and - the Government's $34 million contribution to the development of online curriculum, including science curriculum, through the Le@rning Federation.