INTERNET The Votes and Proceedings for the House of Representatives are available at: Proof and Official Hansards for the House

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

P A R L I A M E N T A R Y D E B A T E S

HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES

Official HansardNo. 11, 2001

MONDAY, 6 AUGUST 2001

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENTFIRST SESSION—TENTH PERIOD

BY AUTHORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

INTERNETThe Votes and Proceedings for the House of Representatives are available at:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/info/votesProof and Official Hansards for the House of Representatives,

the Senate and committee hearings are available at:http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard

SITTING DAYS—2001Month Date

February 6, 7, 8, 26, 27, 28

March 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 26, 27, 28, 29

April 2, 3, 4, 5

May 9, 10, 22, 23, 24

June 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28

August 6, 7, 8, 9, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30

September 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, 26, 27

October 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 25

November 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22

December 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13

RADIO BROADCASTSBroadcasts of proceedings of the Parliament can be heard on the following

Parliamentary and News Network radio stations, in the areas identified.

CANBERRA 1440 AM

SYDNEY 630 AM

NEWCASTLE 1458 AM

BRISBANE 936 AM

MELBOURNE 1026 AM

ADELAIDE 972 AM

PERTH 585 AM

HOBART 729 AM

DARWIN 102.5 FM

THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT

FIRST SESSION—TENTH PERIOD

Governor-General

His Excellency the Right Reverend Dr Peter Hollingworth, Officer of the Order of Australia, Officer ofthe Order of the British Empire

House of Representatives Officeholders

Speaker—The Hon. John Neil Andrew MP

Deputy Speaker—Mr Garry Barr Nehl MP

Second Deputy Speaker—Mr Harry Alfred Jenkins MP

Members of the Speaker’s Panel—The Hon. Godfrey Harry Adams MP,Mr Kevin James Andrews MP, the Hon. Ian Raymond Causley MP,

the Hon. Janice Ann Crosio MBE, MP, Mrs Joanna Gash MP,Mr David Peter Maxwell Hawker MP, Mr Colin Hollis MP,

Mrs De-Anne Margaret Kelly MP, Mr Frank William Mossfield AM, MP,Mr Harry Vernon Quick MP

Leader of the House—The Hon. Peter Keaston Reith MP

Deputy Leader of the House—The Hon. Peter John McGauran MPManager of Opposition Business—The Hon. Robert Francis McMullan MP

Deputy Manager of Opposition Business 7KH�+RQ��/HR�%R\FH�0F/HD\�03

Party Leaders and Whips

Liberal Party of Australia

Leader—The Hon. John Winston Howard MP

Deputy Leader—The Hon. Peter Howard Costello MP

Chief Government Whip—The Hon. Michael John Clyde Ronaldson MP

Government Whips—Mr James Eric Lloyd MP and Mr Fergus Stewart McArthur MP

National Party of Australia

Leader—The Hon. John Duncan Anderson MP

Deputy Leader—The Hon. Mark Anthony James Vaile MP

Whip—Mr John Alexander Forrest MP

Assistant Whip—Mr Paul Christopher Neville MP

Australian Labor Party

Leader—The Hon. Kim Christian Beazley MP

Deputy Leader—The Hon. Simon Findlay Crean MP

Chief Opposition Whip—The Hon. Leo Boyce McLeay MP

Opposition Whips—Mr Rodney Weston Sawford MP and Mr Robert Charles Grant Sercombe MP

Printed by authority of the House of Representatives

ii

Members of the House of RepresentativesMember Division Party

Abbott, Hon. Anthony John Warringah, NSW LPAdams, Hon. Dick Godfrey Harry Lyons, Tas ALPAlbanese, Anthony Norman Grayndler, NSW ALPAnderson, Hon. John Duncan Gwydir, NSW NPAndren, Peter James Calare, NSW Ind.Andrew, Hon. John Neil Wakefield, SA LPAndrews, Kevin James Menzies, Vic LPAnthony, Hon. Lawrence James Richmond, NSW NPBailey, Frances Esther McEwen, Vic LPBaird, Hon. Bruce George Cook, NSW LPBarresi, Phillip Anthony Deakin, Vic LPBartlett, Kerry Joseph Macquarie, NSW LPBeazley, Hon. Kim Christian Brand, WA ALPBevis, Hon. Archibald Ronald Brisbane, Qld ALPBillson, Bruce Fredrick Dunkley, Vic LPBishop, Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Mackellar, NSW LPBishop, Julie Isabel Curtin, WA LPBrereton, Hon. Laurence John Kingsford-Smith, NSW ALPBrough, Hon. Malcolm Thomas Longman, Qld LPBurke, Anna Elizabeth Chisholm, Vic ALPByrne, Anthony Michael Holt, Vic ALPCadman, Hon. Alan Glyndwr Mitchell, NSW LPCameron, Ross Alexander Parramatta, NSW LPCausley, Hon. Ian Raymond Page, NSW NPCharles, Robert Edwin LaTrobe, Vic LPCorcoran, Ann Kathleen Isaacs, Vic ALPCostello, Hon. Peter Howard Higgins, Vic LPCox, David Alexander Kingston, SA ALPCrean, Hon. Simon Findlay Hotham, Vic ALPCrosio, Hon. Janice Ann, MBE Prospect, NSW ALPDanby, Michael Melbourne Ports, Vic ALPDowner, Hon. Alexander John Gosse Mayo, SA LPDraper, Patricia Makin, SA LPEdwards, Hon. Graham John Cowan, WA ALPEllis, Annette Louise Canberra, ACT ALPElson, Kay Selma Forde, Qld LPEmerson, Craig Anthony Rankin, Qld ALPEntsch, Hon. Warren George Leichhardt, Qld LPEvans, Hon. Martyn John Bonython, SA ALPFahey, Hon. John Joseph Macarthur, NSW LPFerguson, Laurence Donald Thomas Reid, NSW ALPFerguson, Martin John, AM Batman, Vic ALPFischer, Hon. Timothy Andrew Farrer, NSW NPFitzgibbon, Joel Andrew Hunter, NSW ALPForrest, John Alexander Mallee, Vic NPGallus, Hon. Christine Ann Hindmarsh, SA LPGambaro, Teresa Petrie, Qld LPGash, Joanna Gilmore, NSW LPGeorgiou, Petro Kooyong, Vic LPGerick, Jane Frances Canning, WA ALPGibbons, Steven William Bendigo, Vic ALPGillard, Julia Eileen Lalor, Vic ALPGriffin, Alan Peter Bruce, Vic ALPHaase, Barry Wayne Kalgoorlie, WA LP

iii


Hall, Jill Griffiths Shortland, NSW ALPHardgrave, Gary Douglas Moreton, Qld LPHatton, Michael John Blaxland, NSW ALPHawker, David Peter Maxwell Wannon, Vic LPHoare, Kelly Joy Charlton, NSW ALPHockey, Hon. Joseph Benedict North Sydney, NSW LPHollis, Colin Patrick Throsby, NSW ALPHorne, Robert Hodges Paterson, NSW ALPHoward, Hon. John Winston Bennelong, NSW LPHull, Kay Elizabeth Riverina, NSW NPIrwin, Julia Claire Fowler, NSW ALPJenkins, Harry Alfred Scullin, Vic ALPJull, Hon. David Francis Fadden, Qld LPKatter, Hon. Robert Carl Kennedy, Qld Ind.Kelly, De-Anne Margaret Dawson, Qld NPKelly, Hon. Jacqueline Marie Lindsay, NSW LPKemp, Hon. David Alistair Goldstein, Vic LPKernot, Cheryl Dickson, Qld ALPKerr, Hon. Duncan James Colquhoun Denison, Tas ALPLatham, Mark William Werriwa, NSW ALPLawler, Anthony John Parkes, NSW NPLawrence, Hon. Carmen Mary Fremantle, WA ALPLee, Hon. Michael John Dobell, NSW ALPLieberman, Hon. Louis Stuart Indi, Vic LPLindsay, Peter John Herbert, Qld LPLivermore, Kirsten Fiona Capricornia, Qld ALPLloyd, James Eric Robertson, NSW LPMcArthur, Fergus Stewart Corangamite, Vic LPMcClelland, Robert Bruce Barton, NSW ALPMcFarlane, Jann Sonya Stirling, WA ALPMcGauran, Hon. Peter John Gippsland, Vic NPMcLeay, Hon. Leo Boyce Watson, NSW ALPMcMullan, Hon. Robert Francis Fraser, ACT ALPMacfarlane, Hon. Ian Elgin Groom, Qld LPMacklin, Jennifer Louise Jagajaga, Vic ALPMartin, Hon. Stephen Paul Cunningham, NSW ALPMay, Margaret Ann McPherson, Qld LPMelham, Daryl Banks, NSW ALPMorris, Allan Agapitos Newcastle, NSW ALPMossfield, Frank William, AM Greenway, NSW ALPMoylan, Hon. Judith Eleanor Pearce, WA LPMurphy, John Paul Lowe, NSW ALPNairn, Gary Roy Eden-Monaro, NSW LPNehl, Garry Barr Cowper, NSW NPNelson, Hon. Brendan John Bradfield, NSW LPNeville, Paul Christopher Hinkler, Qld NPO’Byrne, Michelle Anne Bass, Tas ALPO’Connor, Gavan Michael Corio, Vic ALPO’Keefe, Hon. Neil Patrick Burke, Vic ALPPearce, Christopher John Aston, Vic LPPlibersek, Tanya Joan Sydney, NSW ALPPrice, Hon. Leo Roger Spurway Chifley, NSW ALPProsser, Hon. Geoffrey Daniel Forrest, WA LPPyne, Christopher Maurice Sturt, SA LP

iv


Quick, Harry Vernon Franklin, Tas ALPReith, Hon. Peter Keaston Flinders, Vic LPRipoll, Bernard Fernando Oxley, Qld ALPRonaldson, Hon. Michael John Clyde Ballarat, Vic LPRoxon, Nicola Louise Gellibrand, Vic ALPRudd, Kevin Michael Griffith, Qld ALPRuddock, Hon. Philip Maxwell Berowra, NSW LPSawford, Rodney Weston Port Adelaide, SA ALPSchultz, Albert John Hume, NSW LPSciacca, Hon. Concetto Antonio Bowman, Qld ALPScott, Hon. Bruce Craig Maranoa, Qld NPSecker, Patrick Damien Barker, SA LPSercombe, Robert Charles Grant Maribyrnong, Vic ALPShort, Leonie Marjorie Ryan, Qld ALPSidebottom, Peter Sid Braddon, Tas ALPSlipper, Hon. Peter Neil Fisher, Qld LPSmith, Stephen Francis Perth, WA ALPSnowdon, Hon. Warren Edward Northern Territory ALPSomlyay, Hon. Alexander Michael Fairfax, Qld LPSouthcott, Andrew John Boothby, SA LPSt Clair, Stuart Roy New England, NSW NPStone, Hon. Sharman Nancy Murray, Vic LPSullivan, Hon. Kathryn Jean Martin Moncrieff, Qld LPSwan, Wayne Maxwell Lilley, Qld ALPTanner, Lindsay James Melbourne, Vic ALPTheophanous, Hon. Andrew Charles Calwell, Vic Ind.Thompson, Cameron Paul Blair, Qld LPThomson, Hon. Andrew Peter Wentworth, NSW LPThomson, Kelvin John Wills, Vic ALPTruss, Hon. Warren Errol Wide Bay, Qld NPTuckey, Hon. Charles Wilson O’Connor, WA LPVaile, Hon. Mark Anthony James Lyne, NSW NPVale, Danna Sue Hughes, NSW LPWakelin, Barry Hugh Grey, SA LPWasher, Malcolm James Moore, WA LPWilkie, Kimberley William Swan, WA ALPWilliams, Hon. Daryl Robert, AM, QC Tangney, WA LPWooldridge, Hon. Michael Richard Lewis Casey, Vic LPWorth, Hon. Patricia Mary Adelaide, SA LPZahra, Christian John McMillan, Vic ALP

PARTY ABBREVIATIONS

ALP—Australian Labor Party; LP—Liberal Party of Australia; NP—National Party of Australia;

Ind.—Independent

Heads of Parliamentary DepartmentsClerk of the Senate—H. Evans

Clerk of the House of Representatives—I. C. HarrisDepartmental Secretary, Parliamentary Library—J. W. Templeton

Departmental Secretary, Parliamentary Reporting Staff—J. W. TempletonDepartmental Secretary, Joint House Department—M. W. Bolton

v

HOWARD MINISTRY

Prime Minister The Hon. John Winston Howard MPMinister for Transport and Regional Services

and Deputy Prime MinisterThe Hon. John Duncan Anderson MP

Treasurer The Hon. Peter Howard Costello MPMinister for Trade The Hon. Mark Anthony James Vaile MPMinister for Foreign Affairs The Hon. Alexander John Gosse Downer MPMinister for the Environment and Heritage and

Leader of the Government in the SenateSenator the Hon. Robert Murray Hill

Minister for Communications, InformationTechnology and the Arts and Deputy Leaderof the Government in the Senate

Senator the Hon. Richard Kenneth RobertAlston

Minister for Defence and Leader of the House The Hon. Peter Keaston Reith MPMinister for Health and Aged Care The Hon. Dr Michael Richard Lewis

Wooldridge MPMinister for Finance and Administration The Hon. John Joseph Fahey MPMinister for Education, Training and Youth

Affairs and Minister Assisting the PrimeMinister for the Public Service

The Hon. Dr David Alistair Kemp MP

Minister for Industry, Science and Resources Senator the Hon. Nicholas Hugh MinchinAttorney-General The Hon. Daryl Robert Williams AM, QC, MPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural

Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation andAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs

The Hon. Philip Maxwell Ruddock MP

Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry

The Hon. Warren Errol Truss MP

Minister for Family and Community Servicesand Minister Assisting the Prime Ministerfor the Status of Women

Senator the Hon. Amanda Eloise Vanstone

Minister for Employment, WorkplaceRelations and Small Business

The Hon. Anthony John Abbott MP

(The above ministers constitute the cabinet)

vi

HOWARD MINISTRY—continuedAssistant Treasurer Senator the Hon. Charles Roderick Kemp

Minister for Financial Services and Regulation The Hon. Joseph Benedict Hockey MP

Minister for Regional Services, Territories andLocal Government

Senator the Hon. Ian Douglas Macdonald

Minister for the Arts and the Centenary ofFederation and Deputy Leader of the House

The Hon. Peter John McGauran MP

Minister for Community Services The Hon. Lawrence James Anthony MP

Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and MinisterAssisting the Minister for Defence

The Hon. Bruce Craig Scott MP

Minister for Aged Care The Hon. Bronwyn Kathleen Bishop MP

Special Minister of State Senator the Hon. Eric Abetz

Minister for Sport and Tourism The Hon. Jackie Marie Kelly MP

Minister for Justice and Customs Senator the Hon. Christopher Martin Ellison

Minister for Forestry and Conservation andMinister Assisting the Prime Minister

The Hon. Charles Wilson Tuckey MP

Minister for Employment Services The Hon. Malcolm Thomas Brough MP

Minister for Small Business The Hon. Ian Elgin Macfarlane MP

Parliamentary Secretary to Cabinet Senator the Hon. William Daniel Heffernan

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forTransport and Regional Services

Senator the Hon. Ronald Leslie Doyle Boswell

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forForeign Affairs and Parliamentary Secretary tothe Minister for Immigration and MulticulturalAffairs

Senator the Hon. Kay Christine Lesley Patterson

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for theEnvironment and Heritage

The Hon. Sharman Nancy Stone MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forCommunications, Information Technology andthe Arts and Manager of Government Businessin the Senate

Senator the Hon. Ian Gordon Campbell

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forDefence

The Hon. Dr Brendan John Nelson MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Healthand Aged Care

Senator the Hon. Grant Ernest John Tambling

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forFinance and Administration

The Hon. Peter Neil Slipper MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forEducation, Training and Youth Affairs

The Hon. Patricia Mary Worth MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forIndustry, Science and Resources

The Hon. Warren George Entsch MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forAgriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Senator the Hon. Judith Mary Troeth

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister forReconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Affairs

The Hon. Christine Ann Gallus MP

vii

SHADOW MINISTRYLeader of the Opposition The Hon. Kim Christian Beazley MP

Deputy Leader of the Opposition and ShadowTreasurer

The Hon. Simon Findlay Crean MP

Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, ShadowMinister for Public Administration andGovernment Services and Shadow Ministerfor Olympic Coordination and the Centenaryof Federation

Senator the Hon. John Philip Faulkner

Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senateand Shadow Minister for Trade

Senator the Hon. Peter Francis Salmon Cook

(The following members of the Shadow Ministry are listed in alphabetical order)

Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations The Hon. Archibald Ronald Bevis MP

Shadow Minister for Environment and Heritage Senator the Hon. Nick Bolkus

Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs The Hon. Laurence John Brereton MP

Shadow Minister for Financial Services andRegulation

Senator Stephen Michael Conroy

Shadow Minister for Family Services and theAged

Senator Christopher Vaughan Evans

Shadow Minister for Science and Resources The Hon. Martyn John Evans MP

Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Per-sonnel and Shadow Minister for Forestry andConservation

Mr Laurie Donald Thomas Ferguson MP

Shadow Minister for Regional Development,Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Servicesand Population

Mr Martin John Ferguson MP

Shadow Minister for Small Business and Tourism Mr Joel Andrew Fitzgibbon MP

Shadow Minister for Employment and Training Ms Cheryl Kernot MP

Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs andShadow Minister Assisting the ShadowMinister for Population

The Hon. Duncan James Colquhoun Kerr MP

Shadow Minister for Industry, Innovation andTechnology and Shadow Minister for theStatus of Women

The Hon. Dr Carmen Mary Lawrence MP

Shadow Minister for Education The Hon. Michael John Lee MP

Shadow Minister for Sport and Youth Affairs andShadow Minister Assisting the ShadowMinister for Industry, Innovation andTechnology on Information Technology

Senator Kate Alexandra Lundy

viii

Shadow Ministry—continuedShadow Attorney-General Mr Robert Bruce McClelland MP

Shadow Minister for Regional Services, Territor-ies and Local Government

Senator Susan Mary Mackay

Shadow Minister for Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Affairs, Shadow Minister forReconciliation, Shadow Minister for the Artsand Manager of Opposition Business

The Hon. Robert Francis McMullan MP

Shadow Minister for Health Ms Jennifer Louise Macklin MP

Shadow Minister for Defence The Hon. Dr Stephen Paul Martin MP

Shadow Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry

Mr Gavan Michael O’Connor MP

Shadow Minister for Veterans Affairs Senator the Hon. Christopher Cleland Schacht

Shadow Minister for Immigration and ShadowMinister Assisting the Leader of the Opposi-tion on Multicultural Affairs

The Hon. Con Sciacca MP

Shadow Minister for Communications Mr Stephen Francis Smith MP

Shadow Minister for Family and CommunityServices

Mr Wayne Maxwell Swan MP

Shadow Minister for Finance and ShadowMinister for Consumer Affairs

Mr Lindsay James Tanner MP

Shadow Assistant Treasurer Mr Kelvin John Thomson MP

(The following Parliamentary Secretaries are listed in alphabetical order)

Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Ministerfor Family and Community Services

Mr Anthony Albanese MP

Parliamentary Secretary representing the ShadowMinister for Communications in the Senate

Senator Thomas Mark Bishop

Manager of Opposition Business in the Senateand Parliamentary Secretary representing theShadow Minister for Education in the Senate

Senator Kim John Carr

Parliamentary Secretary representing the ShadowMinisters for Industrial Relations andEmployment, Training and Population in theSenate

Senator Jacinta Mary Ann Collins

Parliamentary Secretary representing the ShadowMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries andForestry in the Senate

Senator Michael George Forshaw

Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Ministerfor Health

Mr Alan Peter Griffin MP

Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Ministerfor Regional Development, Infrastructure,Transport and Regional Services

Mr Robert Horne MP

Monday, 6 August 2001 REPRESENTATIVES 29099

Monday, 6 August 2001—————

Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) tookthe chair at 12.30 p.m. and read prayers.

COMMITTEESTreaties Committee

ReportMr ANDREW THOMSON (Wentworth)

(12.31 p.m.)—On behalf of the Joint Stand-ing Committee on Treaties, I present thecommittee’s report entitled Extradition: Areview of Australia’s law and policy—Report40, together with the minutes of proceedingsand evidence received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.Mr ANDREW THOMSON—The report

I have just tabled contains the results of aninquiry by the treaties committee into Aus-tralia’s extradition law and policy. Over thepast 20 years some high profile extraditioncases, including those involving RobertTrimbole, the late Christopher Skase andcertain alleged World War II criminals suchas Konrad Kalejs, have attracted consider-able public attention and debate in Australia.It is clearly in the interests of Australia, andother nations, to have in place an effectivenetwork that prevents criminals from escap-ing justice, especially those involved intransborder crimes such as money launder-ing, drug trafficking and people-smuggling.We believe it is in our interest to ensure thatAustralia does not become a haven for thosewho have committed serious offences else-where.

At the same time, however, it is importantto ensure that people are protected againstfalse allegations, unlawful prosecution andpossible punishment in countries outsideAustralia. It is balancing these competingconcerns that is at the very heart of extradi-tion policy. Australia’s current approach toextradition derives from the Extradition Act1988. This act introduced major changes toour extradition arrangements, the most sig-nificant of which was to introduce a ‘no evi-dence’ model as the default option for newtreaties that Australia entered into. Underthis model, a country requesting extraditionof an Australian citizen to face trial abroad

need not produce any evidence to support theallegations of criminal conduct; instead, therequesting country need only supply a state-ment of the alleged conduct.

This model represents a radical departurefrom the requirements that had previouslyapplied, and that still apply, under Austra-lia’s extradition arrangements with otherCommonwealth countries—that is, a primafacie standard of evidence must be shownbefore a person can be surrendered. Duringour examination last year of Australia’s pro-posed extradition treaty with Latvia, we onthe committee became concerned that the noevidence model may not provide sufficientprotection for Australians who are accusedof crimes in other countries. Accordingly, wedecided to conduct this review.

Having received and considered evidenceon the issue, we do not favour the continua-tion of the no evidence approach to extradi-tion. Other countries such as the UnitedStates, which is our main extradition partner,and Canada require a higher standard ofproof before their courts will agree that oneof their citizens should be surrendered. Weconsider that similar standards should beapplied in relation to requests for extraditionof our own citizens from Australia. We arenot suggesting that a minitrial should be heldin Australia before a person is surrendered toanother country to face charges, but we arestrongly of the view that justice demands thatour courts should be able to scrutinise atleast some evidence more closely than iscurrently the case before one of our own citi-zens is surrendered to face prosecutionabroad.

Because our inquiry has revealed a widerange of views on precisely what higherstandard should apply before surrender takesplace, we believe there should be furtherconsultation with the legal profession andother interested parties before a final modelis determined. We think the most appropriatevehicle for this further consultation and con-sideration is the Australian Law ReformCommission. The commission has the expe-rience, resources, expertise and, more im-portantly, the independence necessary toconduct a comprehensive examination of themerits and consequences of raising the evi-

29100 REPRESENTATIVES Monday, 6 August 2001

dentiary standard. It must be said in thiscontext that some officials within the execu-tive in this country do not favour raising theevidentiary standard: they see anything in theway of a successful extradition as somehowbeing against public policy. We disagreewith that. We consider that the terms of ref-erence for the commission’s review shouldbe sufficiently broad to allow examinationnot just of the evidentiary standard but alsoof certain other matters that I do not have thetime to go into now. I urge those listening tothe debate today to pay attention to whatother members of the committee have to sayabout this report. We considered it in greatdetail, and it was a matter of conscience forsome members. I commend the report to theHouse. (Time expired)

Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (12.36 p.m.)—Thepurpose of the inquiry of the Joint StandingCommittee on Treaties was to deal with theproblems of extradition, about which—withsome high profile people attracting publicattention—there has been considerable de-bate in Australia. It seems somewhat ironicthat this report, entitled Extradition: A reviewof Australia’s law and policy, has been tabledon the day Christopher Skase has purport-edly died. According to his lawyers and oth-ers in Majorca, it seems that he has finallyescaped the extradition proceedings alto-gether.

Other important issues were raised insubmissions and during our hearings. Theywere: the appropriate division of responsi-bility between the executive and the courts indetermining extradition matters; the inabilityof the person whose extradition has beensought to present evidence, such as alibi evi-dence; the presumption against bail; and, thetype of offence for which extradition isavailable. As noted previously, the Attorney-General—or the Minister for Justice andCustoms, acting on the Attorney-General’sbehalf—has final responsibility for deter-mining whether to surrender a person on re-quest by a foreign country. Traditionally ex-tradition has been an executive function. Asthe Attorney-General’s Department ex-plained:Extradition involves issues of international rela-tions as well as justice. For reasons of diplomacy

a government may wish to describe its groundsfor refusing an extradition in less confrontationalterms than a strict legal consideration of the posi-tion might suggest. Moreover, a government mayhave access to confidential sources of informationon the internal affairs of a requesting country;significant problems could result from any needto substantiate such information in court.There may be occasions when considerationneeds to be given to the possibility of refusingextradition of an otherwise eligible person be-cause of concerns about whether an extraditionpartner is fulfilling its obligations under the rele-vant arrangement or treaty, or indeed whetherthere are conditions or developments in the coun-try which make it an unsuitable treaty partner.These are all matters which a minister is betterpositioned to handle than are the courts ...

There were strong arguments throughout thehearings to suggest that courts should havean expanded role in scrutinising the evidencepresented by a requesting country. Thisshould include consideration of objections toextradition and other evidence, such asstrong exculpatory evidence led by personswho are subject to extradition, to help deter-mine whether a person is an extraditable per-son. There were also arguments to suggestthat the presumption against bail may beoverly strict in some cases, with the currentthreshold being too low, and that a personwho has been surrendered to another countryto face trail should not have to pay for thecost of his or her return to Australia.

Overall the committee recommended that,because the law relating to extradition is socomplex and changes could have significantconsequences, a further consultation and anongoing review should give consideration tothese matters in more detail. It is importantthat we work on the premise of Western de-mocracy and law that a person is innocentuntil proven guilty. We must be sure that therights of a person being sought for extradi-tion are not in any way expunged by admin-istrative expediency. I commend the report tothe House. A good deal of work has goneinto the report. This is a very complex issue,which the committee has given good consid-eration to in the report.

Mr HARDGRAVE (Moreton) (12.41p.m.)—I am also pleased to lend my supportto the 40th report of the Joint Standing


Committee on Treaties entitled Extradition:A review of Australia’s law and policy. Themember for Lyons remarked on the irony ofthe apparent passing of Christopher Skase onthe same day that this report has been tabled.Perhaps it will be of far more relevance andinterest to the fourth estate, which may findsome interest in reading through this report.

This report is not framed in a hugely ho-listic tome sort of way, although there aresome learned legal types on the committee.Without wishing to be offensive, the com-mittee is made up of far more practical peo-ple—ordinary members of parliament fromvarious walks of life. I am sure that the QCsand others who are deliberately interested inthis area will pull it apart and seek someviews from other bodies such as the LawReform Commission, which is one of therecommendations of the inquiry.

The report proves that Australia has somevery tough immigration laws. When you re-view the whole matter of extradition in Aus-tralia, there are not too many cases of peoplewanting to take those who come to thiscountry out of this country to face some trialsomewhere else. The recent case of KonradKalejs perhaps stands out against that broadstatement. Our immigration laws put somevery hard pressure on those aspiring to comeand live here—or, indeed, to visit here—toprove the quality of their character. Australiahas not become a safe haven for criminalsaround the world. I remember Ronald Biggswas here at one stage in the 1960s, butmoved on to somewhere else. This perhapsproves the efficacy of inquiring into thecharacter of those who try to come here. Bythe same token, there are many in our com-munity who would like to see us apply lowerstandards to some who come here as refu-gees and to deal with them in a far moretimely fashion.

This country has standards that value in-dividuals. As this report highlights, the proofof evidence—the demand for a case to be putfor someone to be taken from our shores tosomewhere else—is very demanding. We arenot advocating a series of minitrials for anywho may come this way, but we do not wantto see countries lever out someone who wasperhaps a political activist in their old coun-try. Many in my electorate have come from

the Horn of Africa with a political belief dif-ferent from that of the ruling party. We donot want to see these people being leveredout of a safe haven here in Australia just be-cause someone wanted to put them on somesort of trial for some kind of political reason.The committee do not see extradition as sim-ply an administrative process where a re-quest is filled over a period of time; we be-lieve it is quite fair and reasonable to de-mand some sort of proof of evidence—somesort of understanding—that the charge madeis not spurious, and that it is something thatwill stick.

We also express some concern about thepenalty that may face someone should theyface trial. There are arrangements in place toensure that people taken out of this countryare not going to face the death penalty andother penalties such as torture, because we inthis country do not believe in those sorts ofpenalties. But, as I said, there are those whowould like to see illegal migrants or aspiringrefugees who land on this shore dealt with ina far more curt way—in other words, sentstraight back. But we, as a generous nation,offer them the opportunity to put their case,to produce their evidence and to stake theirclaim for refugee status. If they do establishthat—as some five per cent of the peoplewho come to this country seem to manage todo—they are afforded the opportunity tostay. We even go so far as to extend the gen-erosity of the right of appeal in these matters.

Of course, those opposite are very slug-gish in their support of us trying to stream-line these matters and are, in fact, facing adeal of condemnation from the broad com-munity. There are a lot of people who aremore than a little dissatisfied with the wayour generous systems are being abused bythose who seek to make a lot of money outof the process of appeal and the process ofrepresenting people who may face forcedextradition from this country.

With CHOGM coming, and some of thenotable hoons and hooligans who come fromcountries whose standards are not as good asours who want to bring violent and heatedprotests into my city of Brisbane, I hope thatwe will look at a big stick approach tothreaten those people with far faster extradi-tion than is currently the case. But those


matters are not directly associated with thisreport. I commend the report to the House.(Time expired)

Mr WILKIE (Swan) (12.46 p.m.)—In thecourse of this inquiry, the Joint StandingCommittee on Treaties heard conflicting evi-dence from various witnesses about the suit-ability of a no evidence provision in the ex-tradition process. On the one hand, therewere those who supported the no evidenceprovision because it represents a practicalmeans of facilitating the extradition proc-ess—a position that reflects the original rea-son that the no evidence rule was introducedin around 1985 by the government of theday. It is a practical approach because of thedifferences between countries in their legalsystems and the rules of evidence which ap-ply. It is still a requirement under the no evi-dence provision that a statement of the al-leged conduct be supplied.

We received evidence from the Attorney-General’s Department, who stated that theadoption of the no evidence procedure hadfacilitated entry into extradition treaties withcivil law countries and that, since the optionhad become available, 30 bilateral treatieshad been negotiated or renegotiated, com-pared with only five in the previous 19 years.Australia has entered into extradition treatiesonly with countries where it believes that anindividual would receive a fair trial if theywere extradited. So some very good argu-ments and evidence have been presented asto why a no evidence provision should apply.On the other hand, the accused must be af-forded fair treatment by the legal system, andthere are those who are of the belief that ‘noevidence’ does not allow for this.

We received evidence regarding the primafacie case. Several witnesses to the inquirycriticised the abandonment of that test infavour of the no evidence model. They wereparticularly concerned that this move hadeffectively taken from the courts the respon-sibility of safeguarding the rights of indi-viduals and left it in the hands of the execu-tive. It is, therefore, appropriate that theAustralian Law Reform Commission under-take a more detailed investigation into thismatter and make recommendations to par-liament. These recommendations could thenbe used to develop a framework for Australia

on the level of evidence that would need tobe presented before extradition could takeplace. Until that investigation has takenplace, I believe that parliament could not beadequately informed to allow it to make rec-ommendations on this aspect of extraditionpolicy. It is logical to recommend, for exam-ple, that the no evidence model be discontin-ued while at the same time recommendingthat the Australian Law Reform Commissionundertake an investigation into this matter. Itis good to see that we are actually going tobe investigating those issues.

The treaties committee identified severaldifferent models in addition to the no evi-dence model that is available at the momentthat the Australian Law Reform Commissioncould consider and provide recommenda-tions on. It is far more appropriate to pursuethis course of action, so that the parliamentcan ultimately make informed decisions onextradition policy. It is also appropriate thatthe Australian Law Reform Commissioninvestigate some of the broader aspects ofextradition policy. Again, the treaties com-mittee should base its recommendations onextradition policy on the advice it receivesfrom the Australian Law Reform Commis-sion. These two recommendations are appro-priate, and should be supported. I commendthe report to the House.

Mr ANDREW THOMSON (Went-worth)—I move:

That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.Mr SPEAKER—In accordance with

standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned.The resumption of the debate will be madean order of the day for the next sitting, andthe member will have leave to continuespeaking when the debate is resumed.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING(OBJECTIVITY, FAIRNESS ANDACCOUNTABILITY) BILL 2001

First ReadingBill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a

first time.Mr BEAZLEY (Brand—Leader of the

Opposition) (12.50 p.m.)—Mr Speaker, inpresenting the Government Advertising(Objectivity, Fairness and Accountability)


Bill 2000, we note that the Australian publichave a right to be cynical about politiciansspending their money on advertising cam-paigns. Since the government came to powerin 1996, every Australian family has paid atleast $108 in tax towards this government’sadvertising. That is $108 per family. In fiveyears this government has spent at least $550million in advertising expenditure. Com-pared to the last five years when Labor wasin office, government advertising under thisgovernment has trebled.

But it gets worse. In the lead-up to thenext election, the government will spendaround $20 million a month—all in an at-tempt to save its political hide. To anyonewho has seen those ads, it is abundantly clearthat this is not advertising simply to informthe community about government programs,but advertising to promote the politicalagenda of this government. That is why theLabor Party will do its best to try to stop thismisuse of taxpayers’ funds with this bill Ipresent today.

Last year this government was Australia’sbiggest spender on advertising—beatingCoca-Cola, Telstra, Coles Myer, McDon-ald’s, Toyota and other major corporations.Think of the number of times you have seena McDonald’s commercial or a Coca-Colacommercial in recent times; then ponder onthe fact that the Howard government hasactually spent more on advertising. This ismoney that should have been spent on betterhospitals and better schools, not on a desper-ate bid to be re-elected. This governmentwill not address the need for better hospitalsand schools, but it will spend millions ofdollars on advertising to help it win the nextelection. No wonder people are cynical aboutpolitics, when they see the huge amount thisgovernment is wasting on advertisements.Australians will not be tricked into believingthis propaganda.

In the last two months, we have beenbombarded with political advertisements onissues ranging from social matters to tax is-sues. But this is just the beginning. In recentmonths you would have seen several cam-paigns, including the private health insurancegap ads, which will cost the Australian tax-payer $15 million over the next three

months. As my colleague Jenny Macklin,Labor’s health spokesperson, has said, thisamount could fund 1,250 hip replacements or1,000 operations. Should we be elected tooffice, we have already identified, in the areathat Jenny Macklin will represent as ministerfor health, $90 million for a cancer pro-gram—something which affects the lives ofjust about every Australian family. Howmuch better that we spend it on that, ratherthan looting the public purse for the purposesof this ignoble government and the wretchedpolitical party underpinning it. If the gov-ernment wants to inform private health in-surance subscribers of their rights, it shouldget the information to those people alone, notthe entire electorate. Why does the govern-ment have to spend millions of dollars ad-vertising something that should be paid notby the Australian taxpayer but by the privatehealth insurance companies? They are notshort of a quid, with absolutely bulging cof-fers at this moment.

We have also seen a $4.1 million ad cam-paign to publicise budget measures for pen-sioners and retiree benefits. This figure couldrise as high as $6 million once productionand research costs are taken into account.But this information could have been sentthrough a mail-out to those affected. Thiswould have been a much cheaper and moreeffective method. There is no reason why thegovernment needed to spend millions to in-form pensioners anyway; the $300 that theyare getting from the budget would be auto-matically deposited into their accounts. It isan absolute scandal that the money is spenton this advertising rather than on the manyother needs of the elderly.

Then there was the $5 million campaignon the abolition of the financial institutionsduty. This is a state tax—and the whole kitand caboodle of any benefit of that financialinstitutions duty change has been seized bythe banks in massively increased bankcharges. This government does not evenhave the guts to go to the banks and say,‘You will pass this on to consumers. Youwill put in place a social contract to ensurethat the elderly and families are given decentservices.’ It has not got the courage to dothat. It put out that $5 million campaign on


that state tax—the financial institutionsduty—and the banks got it all; the public gotnothing. But I did not notice that featuring inany of the ads.

Let us not forget the $6 million for an ad-vertising campaign to encourage farmers toapply for a grant on the Agriculture—Ad-vancing Australia scheme. With this money,every Australian farmer could have received60 letters encouraging him or her to applyfor the grant. But wait, there’s more! TheHoward government will soon launch three,possibly four, more advertising campaigns.The government has already started produc-ing its $6.7 million Telstra Networking theNation advertising program, in an attempt totry to highlight the service delivery to thebush. But rural and regional Australia is notgoing to be fooled by the propaganda. In-stead of actually spending the $6.7 millionon programs that will help the bush, it hasspent that amount on advertising, in the vainhope that it will convince the electorate tovote for the third round of Telstra privatisa-tion. ‘Not on your nelly,’ say the people inregional Australia—as I have occasion toknow, having spent a couple of weeks withthem in the course of the last six weeks,talking to them about Telstra. I know exactlywhat they think about the proposition on pri-vatisation, and they are our views, not theviews of this government.

We also know that the government hasstarted filming a $4.2 million advertisingcampaign to promote its Work for the Doleprogram. This program has failed to help theunemployed, and it has no real training com-ponent, particularly for the long-term unem-ployed. We are just starting to see the corruptscandals emerging with the government’sJob Network program—and I bet they willnot be advertising any of the corruption onthat front!

There is also in the pipeline a $5 millioncampaign to highlight John Howard’s inno-vation strategy—a totally inadequate strategyunveiled last January. Why have they waitedthis long to highlight it with an expensiveadvertising campaign? We all know that thisgovernment decimated research and devel-opment programs, industry research and uni-versity funding over the last five years. Now

it is trying to play catch-up with Labor’sKnowledge Nation. We are flattered, but itwill spend $5 million on advertising, whichcould have been spent on those very pro-grams, its catch-up with Labor’s KnowledgeNation.

We also hear that there is going to be an-other major advertising campaign, wouldyou believe: $4.5 million going into adver-tisements for a Jobs Network campaign inthe first half of the financial year, to maintainthe momentum of information. It will bemaintaining the momentum of corruption—and there will be no information associatedwith that. There will be $4.5 million of pub-lic funds going to that effort.

These are not genuine information cam-paigns. Paul Gardner, chairman of one of thetop advertising agencies in Australia, GreyWorldwide, recently told the Australian,when asked his opinion on the ‘no gap’ adsand the new pension payment advertise-ments:And I think in some cases, the Government isselling rather than telling ... they certainly deliverinformation in a way that paints the Governmentin a better light.

He is absolutely right. This government is inthe business of selling rather than telling, andalways has been.

Who could forget the ‘Unchain my heart’campaign last year in the lead-up the GST?This campaign was not informative, it wascertainly not objective, and it was definitelypolitical. If the government had followed theAuditor-General’s recommended rules, the‘Unchain my heart’ campaign would neverhave been aired. And yet this governmentspent $46 million on the ‘Unchain my heart’ads—the most expensive ad campaign everundertaken in this country. The ‘Unchain myheart’ ads claimed that Australia wouldmove from a tax regime that was restrictiveto a tax regime that was simpler. What a re-markable assertion that was. It never pointedout that there would be a surge in employ-ment at the tax office, with excise inspectorsand officials—at least 4,000 at the tax officeand the ACCC and 500 in Customs—tomonitor this simpler tax regime.

Nor did the campaign point out that thenumber of pages in legislation would sky-


rocket under their new simple system. Nordid it explain the number of people whowould now find themselves unpaid tax col-lectors. Even the tax office is admitting tocustomers how complex this tax system is,and yet the advertisements claimed it would‘unchain our hearts’. It has unchained ouranger; there is no doubt about that. This isone of the scandals for which the Australianpeople are unanimous in their condemnationof the Howard government.

It is important to be reminded of the cen-tral tenets on advertising adopted by the JointCommittee on Public Accounts and Auditwhich the Howard government has refusedto adopt. The committee stated last year thatinformation campaigns should be justified bya cost benefit analysis. The nature of thecampaign should be justified in terms of so-ciety’s needs, efficiency and effectiveness. Itstated that care should be taken to ensure thatmedia placement of government advertisingis determined on a needs basis and targetedaccordingly. But do you think that JohnHoward has paid any attention to these rec-ommendations? Of course he has not. If hehad, he would not be spending $20 million amonth in the lead-up to the next federalelection. Not only has he ignored the Audi-tor-General’s recommendations; he has alsoignored his Liberal led Joint Committee onPublic Accounts and Audit which signed offon these guidelines.

That is why I present this bill today. It willdo what this government will not: stop theblatant waste of money for political gain. IfLabor is elected, we will get rid of the ‘sell’in political advertisements and make surethat all political advertising is informative. Itwas the Prime Minister who in September1995 said:We will ask the Auditor-General to establish a setof guidelines and we will run our advertisementspast the Auditor-General and they will need tosatisfy those guidelines.

That promise, like so many others, was anon-core promise.

Let me outline what this bill does andwhere it comes from. This bill will amendthe Financial Management and Accountabil-ity Act 1997 to require government adver-tising to meet minimum standards with re-

spect to objectivity, fairness and account-ability. It will prohibit expenditure of tax-payers’ money on advertising which pro-motes party political interests. The billmakes it improper to use, or permit to beused, any public money for a governmentinformation program unless that program isin accordance with the principles and guide-lines for use of government advertising. Thisis in addition to the other ways in whichpublic money may be improperly used ordisposed of.

The bill has been redrafted from its earlierversion to streamline and improve some ofits language and provisions. Importantly, itallows an advertising campaign to be imme-diately stopped by a court order if it breachesthe guidelines. A failure to stop such an ad-vertisement would then be punishable as acontempt of court. This means that a gov-ernment minister who allows, or continues toallow, improper advertising would face ahefty fine or a period of imprisonment. Thebill sets out principles and guidelines for theuse of government advertising which aresubstantially the same as the draft guidelinesrecommended in October 1998 by the Audi-tor-General. This followed a report on thegovernment’s $15 million tax reform adver-tising campaign in the lead-up to the 1998general election. You will remember thatcampaign. Nowhere in the two weeks ofcampaigning and the huge expenditure werethe words ‘goods and services tax’ men-tioned. The Auditor-General found that to bean absurdity, given that at the heart of thegovernment’s proposals was a $30 billiongorilla of a new tax.

The Labor Party understands that gov-ernments have to inform people. We are notsaying that governments should be excludedfrom advertising, and this bill would not dothat. We know that there are a number ofcampaigns such as health warnings, healthproblems and modest, well-targeted defencerecruitment—governments are obliged tospend money in the community’s interest.But there is the potential for abuse here, andtherefore there need to be sensible safe-guards.

The principles and guidelines we propose,among other things, are: government adver-


tising material should be relevant to govern-ment responsibilities; this material should bepresented in an objective and fair manner;that the information in government advertis-ing should be based on accurate, verifiablefacts which are carefully and precisely ex-pressed in conformity with those facts; noclaim or statements should be made that can-not be substantiated; the recipient of the in-formation should always be able to distin-guish clearly and easily between facts on onehand and comment, opinion and analysis onthe other; material should not be liable tomisrepresentation as party political; infor-mation campaigns should not be intention-ally promoting, or perceived to be promot-ing, party political interests; material shouldbe presented in an unbiased and objectivelanguage and in a manner free from partisanpromotion of government policy and politi-cal argument; material should not directlyattack or scorn the views, policies or actionsof others; no information campaigns shouldbe undertaken without a justifiable costbenefit analysis; the cost of the chosen scaleand methods of communicating informationmust be justifiable in terms of achieving theidentified objectives at the least practicableexpense.

Nobody should be fooled by this govern-ment’s campaign of advertising. Nobody isfooled. Everybody knows it to be the cor-ruption that it is. And everybody knows andhas their favourite program which wouldreally serve the needs of the people of Aus-tralia if that program were to be funded outof this advertising money. In our case youcan bet your bottom dollar it will be. (Timeexpired)

Ordered that the second reading be madean order of the day for the next sitting.

PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESSKokoda Track

Mr SECKER (Barker) (1.06 p.m.)—Imove:

That this House:(1) expresses its support for the development of

the Kokoda Track as a National MemorialPark; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) support and fund the construction of anall weather road from Kokoda to Ower’sCorner, and of educational memorials ateach of the battle sites along the Track;

(b) commemorate the 60th anniversary ofour brave armed forces campaign withan Anzac Day Dawn Service in 2002 atOwer’s Corner; and

(c) establish a project team to oversee thesematters, consisting of representatives ofthe Departments of the Prime Ministerand Cabinet, Foreign Affairs, Defence,Veterans’ Affairs and Environment andHeritage.

It gives me enormous pleasure to introduceinto the House and to speak on this motiontoday, because I think what we are trying toachieve today is something that all Austra-lians can identify with. In giving some back-ground on what brought me to be so enthusi-astic about this proposal to commemorate thediggers and the local fuzzy wuzzy angels andwhat they did in the Second World War onthe Kokoda Track, it would be remiss of menot to mention the long and untiring effortsof the Hon. Charlie Lynn, a member of theNew South Wales upper house, who firstbrought my attention to this proposal. I firstheard about it earlier in the year when Char-lie spoke at a function held in Meningie, inthe electorate of Barker, which I was privi-leged to attend. Over 100 people were asspellbound as I was when Charlie spoke atlength of his own personal experiences andthe stories that he had learned over the years.

I also have a personal connection in thatmy middle name of Damien was selected bymy parents because of the famous and heroicefforts of that great wartime photographerDamien Parer, the first Australian to win anOscar for his work and who in fact died inaction. As I was born on the anniversary ofD-day in the Second World War, it was quiteappropriate. If it were not for Charlie Lynn, Iwould not be here today trying to repeatsome of his enthusiasm for this memorial. Iknow he had planned to be here today, butunfortunately circumstances beyond hiscontrol have not allowed this to happen.

I do not think it is too full of hyperbole tostate that our diggers’ efforts at Kokoda arethe Second World War equivalent of Galli-poli, and it is a shame on this country that


people know more about the story of theAlamo in Texas, United States, than theyknow about the Kokoda Track. The horrificodds faced by our diggers at Kokoda werefar greater than those heroes at the Alamo,but we still have not seen a film about it, forinstance, even though there has been a filmscript written. I have no doubt that if thiswere an American story there would havebeen several films made about our servicemen and women’s efforts to stop the Japa-nese invasion in horrific conditions andagainst all odds.

On 24 July 1942, a superior Japaneseforce launched an attack on a small band ofAustralian defenders, and the Papuan infan-try dug in on the Kokoda plateau. Their ob-jective was to cross the Owen Stanley rangein Papua New Guinea and capture the strate-gic city of Port Moresby. The Australiandiggers were young, outnumbered and out-gunned. During the next three months theAustralians forced the Japanese to contestevery inch of the rugged and treacherousKokoda Track as they advanced towards theJapanese objective of capturing Port Mo-resby. In fact, the first Victoria Cross won onAustralian soil was posthumously awarded toPrivate Bruce Kingsbury of the 2/14th Bat-talion during the Battle of Isurava.

The Australians rallied at the last ridgelineat Imita Ridge, a mere 40 kilometres fromPort Moresby. The hugely more powerfuland numbered Japanese force had stretchedtheir resources to the limit in attempting to

annihilate the Australians and on 17 Septem-ber 1942 were ordered to conduct a fightingwithdrawal to the beachheads of Buna andGona on the northern coast of Papua NewGuinea. Australian reinforcements and Japa-nese setbacks at Guadalcanal and the Battleof Milne Bay saved Port Moresby.

The Australians pursued the Japanese withgreat courage and vigour and reoccupied thevillage of Kokoda on 2 November 1942. Thefighting from July to November cost 607lives, with more than 1,000 serious injuries.One would only have to trek across theKokoda Track now to realise what an almostimpossible task it would have been againstthe overwhelming odds faced by our diggers.It was Sir William Slim who said, ‘Some ofus may forget that of all the allies it was theAustralian soldiers who first broke the spellof invincibility of the Japanese army.’ Notonly that, they succeeded and won the bat-tles.

There is a proposal for a master plan todevelop the Kokoda Track into a memorialpark, and because of time constraints and myinability to speak at length on it, I seek leaveto incorporate three tables from that plan intoHansard which relate to, firstly, the depart-ments involved; secondly, some key datesfor action; and, thirdly, a possible agenda fora joint project team operation.

Leave granted.The tables read as follows—

DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITYForeign Affairs Relations with PNG. Management of AUSAID budgetDefence Restorations of defensive positions at Kokoda, Isurava, Eora Creek, Brigade Hill

and Imita Ridge. Restoration of small arms weapons and the Ford Tri-Motor Air-craft at Myola.

Veterans’ Affairs Design and construction of educational memorials at Ower’s Corner, Imita Ridge,Iorabaiwa Ridge, Menari, Brigade Hill, Efogi, Myola, Templeton’s Crossing, EoraCreek, Alola, Abuari, Isurava, Deniki and Kokoda.

Environment and Heritage Expertise in establishment and operation of National Parks.Tourism Expertise in the marketing of eco-adventure tourism activities.Education and Youth Affairs Increasing awareness of our Australian Military History through our educational

curriculum.Arts Encouraging the production of films, documentaries and books on our military

campaigns in the South West Pacific.


It should also include service representatives from the RSL and Rotary International.The PNG component will be determined by the PNG Government.I recommend that key dates for the development of the proposal be:

DATE DAYXHASE ACTION15 Aug 2001 VP Day Official Announcement of the Project1-13 Oct 2001 PNG Phase Joint Project Team walks the Kokoda Track, inspects the battle-

sites, meets with villagers and local landowners and prepares thefirst draft of the master plan.

29 Oct-3 Nov 2001 Australian Phase PNG component travels to Australia, visits the Kokoda TrackMemorial Walkway in Sydney, the Australian War Memorial inCanberra and meets with returned service representatives andgovernment officials. The final draft of the plan to be completedby the end of this phase.

25 Apr 2002 Anzac Day - 60th Project formally commenced with an official

Project Kokoda Trek1-13 October, 2001

DAY DATE TREK DETAILS1 Mon, 1 Oct Fly Sydney to Port Moresby

Accommodation at Loloata Island Resort (Briefing on strategic situation in SouthWest Pacific Area in early 1942).

2 Tue, 2 Oct Visit PNG Parliament (Briefings by PNG Government and Australian High Com-mission representatives).

3 Wed, 3 Oct Charter Flight: Port Moresby to KokodaInspect Museum and Memorials on Kokoda PlateauTrek to campsite at Hoi Village

4 Thu, 4 Oct Trek to Alola Village via Isurava VillageInspect the Isurava battlesite which has been described by Professor David Homeras ‘the battle that saved Australia’.

5 Fri, 5 Oct Trek to Templeton’s CrossingFollow the Australian withdrawal route after the defeat at Isurava.Inspect delaying defensive positions occupied by the Australian 2/14th and 2/16thBattalions south of Eora Creek.Inspect the area that took the Australian 25th Brigade 17 days to fight through asthey forced the Japanese back across the Track.

6 Sat, 6 Oct Trek to Lake Myola. Location of a major Australian base camp.7 Sun, 7 Oct Trek to Naduli Village.8 Mon, 8 Oct Trek to Efogi Village via Kagi. Inspect the area where the Japanese 144th South

Seas Island Regiment formed up for their attack against the Australian 21st Brigadelocated on Brigade Hill.Inspect the small village museum which contains weapons, ammunition and theremains of Australian soldiers.

9 Tue, 9 Oct Trek to Menari Village via Brigade Hill. Inspect the Brigade Hill battlesite andgravesite (site of the biggest battle of the Kokoda campaign). Camp in the areawhere Lt Col Honner held the first parade of the gallant 39th Militia Battalion afterthe battle of Isurava.

10 Wed, 10 Oct Trek to Naoro Village. Site of a major Australian staging depot.11 Thu, 11 Oct Trek to Ua Ule Creek via Iorabaiwa Ridge which is the furthest point reached by

the Japanese in their quest to capture Port Moresby.12 Fri, 12 Oct Trek to Ower’s Corner via Imita Ridge, the infamous ‘Golden Staircase’ area and

the Goldie River.Bus transport to Port Moresby.

13 Sat, 13 Oct Debrief in Port Moresby.Fly Port Moresby to Sydney


Mr SECKER—Thank you. I sent thisproposal around to colleagues on both sidesof the House not expecting too much re-sponse because of the time constraints thatwe all have, but I was ecstatic at the responseI received. I am pleased that the member forCowan, as the first member to respond, hashonoured me with his support in secondingthis motion. I also thank in anticipation themembers for Lowe and Canning from theopposition, my good friend here, the memberfor Hume, and very appropriately the mem-ber for Robertson, who is chairman of thePapua New Guinea-Australia FriendshipGroup. I must have had responses from atleast 20 members within a couple of days ofthis proposal, and I thank you all for yourcontinued interest and support. I also pass onwhat I am sure would be Charlie Lynn’sthanks to all those members who have enthu-siastically supported his ideas that I will nowbriefly outline.

Whilst I have previously comparedKokoda with Gallipoli, I think the pilgrimageto Kokoda could be quite different. Somewill want to walk the track, while others willwant to drive from Port Moresby to the be-ginning of Ower’s Corner where the trackstarts. Ower’s Corner provides a majesticview over the Owen Stanley Ranges and isideally suited as the future location of anannual Anzac Day service, and wouldn’t itbe great if we could have our first on the60th anniversary of this campaign next yearin 2002? To realise this vision, we need toensure that an all-weather road is constructedthrough to Ower’s Corner. Education memo-rials need to be constructed at each of thebattle sites along the track, and local Kioraguides need to be trained in the military andcultural history of the Kokoda. A memorialsite with suitable facilities for large groups ofvisitors needs to be constructed at Ower’sCorner. Urgent action is needed if we are tomeet a deadline of having the inauguraldawn service at Ower’s Corner on 25 April2002.

Urgent liaison with the government ofNew Guinea is essential, and a project teamfrom the Department of the Prime Ministerand Cabinet, the Department of Foreign Af-fairs and Trade, the Department of Defence,

the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and theDepartment of the Environment and Heritagemust be formed. Not only that, this projectteam should trek across the Kokoda Trackthemselves, preferably next month or in Oc-tober. Urgent action is needed and warranted.I am indebted to the Minister for Veterans’Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Scott, for providingme with some information concerning thefederal government’s plans for a major seriesof commemorations in 2002 to mark the 60thanniversary of the defence of Australia cam-paign, which will include Kokoda amongstsuch events as the fall of Singapore, the Bat-tle of the Coral Sea, the bombing of Darwinand the Milne Bay action. The minister hasreacted quickly to establish an interdepart-mental committee on the future of theKokoda Track, which will be incorporated inthe 2002 defence of Australia commemora-tions.

I also thank the Prime Minister for hissupport in this matter; he has taken a per-sonal interest in ensuring that this committeeis formed and is operational as soon as pos-sible. There has been a hold-up in negotia-tions with the Papua New Guinea govern-ment, but Charlie Lynn made a separate visitin late June and had considerable success inbreaking the deadlock by reaching an agree-ment with the local governor of Oro Prov-ince to permit 300 fee paying people to walkthe Kokoda Track during the rest of 2001.Charlie Lynn informs me that he met withPNG ministers, members, local governmentcouncillors and individual landholders alongthe Kokoda Track who have given their sup-port to the proposal and welcome the oppor-tunity to develop a master plan.

I will conclude by saying that my enthusi-asm for this project is enormous and, when-ever I have spoken of this to the constituentsin the electorate of Barker, I have been grati-fied to feel the same sort of enthusiasm beingreturned—because this is part of our noblehistory that captures the imagination of peo-ple of all ages and all backgrounds. I com-mend the proposed resolution and seek thesupport of the House for what is truly a bi-partisan goal to commemorate our armedservices during the Second World War.


Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Isthe motion seconded?

Mr EDWARDS (Cowan) (1.16 p.m.)—Isecond the motion. I am very pleased, in abipartisan spirit, to second this motion soably moved by the member for Barker and tocompliment him, indeed, for bringing thisimportant issue before the House. This is animportant issue. Like many in the chamberhere, I am a baby-boomer whose father was aveteran of the Second World War; I andmany others like me, I suppose, grew uplearning the stories of Kokoda and learningabout the heroes—the people like DamienParer, of course—who were so well re-spected by the Australian service men andwomen of that time.

But, in doing a bit of research for this mo-tion, I came across a speech that was madeon Sunday, 26 April 1992, by the formerPrime Minister Paul Keating. He was atKokoda for the 50th anniversary of this bat-tle. I will quote from his speech, because Ithink it is indeed a very moving speech. PaulKeating, on that date, said:This is the place where the rock of friendship andthe foundation stone of relations between our twocountries rests and while we’ve had a long historytogether in places like Port Moresby and Lae andother places it is really here that the soul of therelationship sits, here in Kokoda. Because it washere that Australians decided to defend your lib-erty as well as their own and you decided to de-fend yourselves and help us defend ourselves. Itwas here young Australian men fought for thefirst time against the prospect of the invasion oftheir country, of Australia.Never before, even though we fought in manyconflicts, mostly imperial conflicts, in conflictswhere we felt pangs of loyalty to what was thenknown as the “Mother Country” to Britain and tothe empire to fight in Gallipoli with heroism andin Belgium in Flanders and in France and in otherplaces, this was the first and only time that we’vefought against an enemy to prevent the invasionof Australia, to secure the way of life we had builtfor ourselves. And those young Australian menfought here, 2,000 of them died, 600 Americansdied later and we should never forget their sacri-fice, that the families who live so distantly in theUnited States lost 600 sons here should never beforgotten and they cost the lives of 13,000 Japa-nese who fought for their country and what theybelieved were their country’s strategic interests

which were, of course, interests which we couldnot accept and could only abhor.The lesson of this place is that these young menbelieved in Australia and we need to give Austra-lians, all Australians, particularly young Austra-lians, an Australia to believe in. We can’t denyyoung Australians their birthright to a past withmeaning for them and a future with meaning. Ithas to be a future with meaning and everythingwe see here—there can be no deeper spiritualbasis to the meaning of the Australian nation thanthe blood that was spilled on this very knoll, thisvery plateau, in defence of the liberty of Austra-lia.So Prime Minister—

and that was, of course, the Prime Ministerof Papua New Guinea—can I thank you on behalf of your countrymen,some who I’ve met here today who actuallyfought in that campaign, for those who died inthat campaign, to the relatives here today of lovedones who were lost in that campaign but whogave their lives selflessly in the defence of PapuaNew Guinea and the defence of Australia and thebroader defence of liberty in the Pacific.This was the place where I believe the depth andsoul of the Australian nation was confirmed. If itwas founded in Gallipoli it was certainly con-firmed in the defence of our homeland here. So Ithank you Sir for inviting me and my wife to thisfiftieth anniversary of the Papua New Guineacampaign and particularly on behalf of the Aus-tralian people I thank the people of Papua NewGuinea, the people of Kokoda, the people of thesurrounding areas and the people of the PapuaNew Guinea defence force and its forebears fortheir support of Australians at war.

I will come back to that issue of support in aminute, but I think it is fitting that our pastPrime Minister and our current Prime Min-ister have very strong thoughts and viewsabout this place we are talking about today.Given their strong views and given the inter-est of this parliament, I have no doubt that ifwe are prepared to pursue this issue, thenindeed we could have the Kokoda Track de-veloped as a national memorial park, as issuggested in this motion.

Prime Minister Keating spoke about thesupport that the Australian diggers receivedon the Kokoda Track. When researching thisissue, I also came across a poem that I wouldlike to relate to the House. It was written bya sapper, H. Beros, who was in the 7th Divi-


sion AIF with the Royal Australian Engi-neers. Bert Beros served, according to thisnote, in both World War I and World War II.He wrote this poem at 4 a.m. one morning onthe Kokoda Track after having been onstand-to. It may never have been printed butfor the fact that an officer sent a copy hometo his mother, and she was so impressed thatshe had it published in the Brisbane Courier-Mail. The poem reads:The Fuzzy Wuzzy AngelsMany a mother in Australia,When the busy day is done,Sends a prayer to the AlmightyFor the keeping of her son.Asking that an Angel guide himAnd bring him safely backNow we see those prayer are answeredOn the Owen Stanley Track,For they haven’t any halos,Only holes slashed in their ears,And with faces worked by tattoos,With scratch pins in their hair,Bringing back the wounded,Just as steady as a hearse,Using leaves to keep the rain offAnd gentle as a nurse.Slow and careful in bad places,On the awful mountain track,And the look upon their faces’Makes us think that Christ was black.Not a move to hurt the carried,As they treat him like a Saint,It’s a picture worth recording,That an Artist’s yet to paint.Many a lad will see his Mother,And the Husbands, Weans and Wives,Just because the Fuzzy WuzzyCarried them to save their lives.From mortar or machine gun fire,Or a chance surprise attack,To safety and the care of Doctors,At the bottom of the track.May the Mothers in Australia,When they offer up a prayer,Mention those impromptu Angels,With the Fuzzy Wuzzy hair.That concludes the poem. I think the spirit ofthat poem, the spirit of what was said by themember for Barker here today and the spiritof what was said by Prime Minister Keatingembrace the spirit of what most Australiansfeel about the Kokoda Track and those wholost their lives there. The Kokoda Track is tothose who fought in New Guinea what Galli-poli is to those who fought in that campaign,

what Kapyong is to those who fought in Ko-rea and what Long Tan is to those whofought in Vietnam. Though these battleswere in fields far flung from Australia, theyhad one thing in common: the courage of theAustralian servicemen, their love of freedomand their uncompromising approach tomateship. If we feel anything about thoseissues and if we feel anything aboutmateship, we should feel strong enough inthat mateship to want to do something toensure that the sacrifices that those menmade on the Kokoda Track and the spirit ofsupport that they received from the fuzzywuzzy angels is not forgotten. The way toremember those people and those sacrificesis contained in this motion before us. I amvery pleased to, in a bipartisan way, givesupport to the member for Barker and to thismotion. While there are limitations on thenumber of people who can speak on the mo-tion, I am sure that most members of thisHouse, and of this parliament, would speakin support of this motion were there time forthem to do so. I commend the motion to theHouse.

Mr SCHULTZ (Hume) (1.25 p.m.)—It isan honour for me to stand here as an Austra-lian member of parliament to support thismotion by my friend the member for Barker,ably backed up by the member for Cowan. Iam also mindful of the magnificent contribu-tion of my old mate Charlie Lynn, the hon-ourable MLC for the New South Wales par-liament. He has been fighting this battle onbehalf of the memory of those fellows whodied on the Kokoda Trail. I commend himfor the diligence and the compassion withwhich he has driven himself to ensure thatthis issue is raised in the parliament here to-day.

Let me go back to 1942. It was the yearAustralia lost its innocence. Pearl Harbourhad been bombed. Hong Kong and Singa-pore had fallen. Darwin had been bombedand midget submarines had raided SydneyHarbour. Another nation was trying to stealour country, and we were not prepared. InAugust 1942 a small band of diggers wasthrown against the might of the Japanesearmy in a last-ditch defence of Australia’snorthern doorstep. The diggers were out-


gunned and outnumbered six to one. Many ofthem were recent conscripts, aged 18, whohad never fired a shot in anger. These youngmen, together with units of the AIF rushedback from the Middle East, confronted theJapanese high in the Owen Stanley mountainrange in Papua New Guinea. There theyformed a ragged line of defence between theinvaders and the Australian mainland. TheJapanese 144th Regiment, crack troops of theEmperor’s South Seas Force, had been in-vincible since they had been blooded inManchuria in 1937. They had surged un-checked through Asia and the Pacific. Thir-teen thousand of them landed in NewGuinea, their last step before conqueringAustralia itself.

At best, the Aussies could gather about2,000 troops to oppose them. The battle-ground was a narrow, meandering and pre-cipitous path through impenetrable junglewhich led to Port Moresby and then Austra-lia. On the Kokoda Track there was no es-cape: no helicopters or air support to medi-vac the wounded, no aerial bombardment, noartillery—although the Japanese luggedmountain guns through the jungle. This wasthe last major man-to-man battle in history.If you could not walk out, or the brave Pap-uan fuzzy wuzzy angels could not carry youout, you died. In this cauldron, many diggersjoined the immortals. There were men likeBruce Kingsbury VC, who single-handedlycharged into the heart of the enemy, killing30 or 40 or them and saving his battalionheadquarters, only to be struck down by asniper at the moment of his glory. These arethe words of Sergeant Allan Avery, 39thBattalion:I reckon he almost gave his life because there wasnothing scared about it. No, he just went straightinto them as if bullets didn’t mean anything, youknow. And we all got a bit of the action, you see,when we saw him. When you see something likethat, you sort of follow the leader, don’t you? Andthat is what we did.

And there were men like Sergeant ‘Teddy’Bear, a hero of the battle for Isurava, wholaunched a ferocious solo charge at the in-vaders, so ferocious that some Japanese sol-diers were seen to jump to their deaths over aprecipice rather than face him, and men likeCorporal John Metson, who with superhu-

man selflessness refused a stretcher andcrawled for 10 days dragging his leg shat-tered by a machinegun, before being mur-dered by the Japanese. The battle forKokoda, as my parliamentary colleague themember for Barker quite rightly said, isAustralia’s Alamo. If Gallipoli symbolisedthe Anzac spirit in World War I, thenKokoda is its Second World War equivalent.The Aussies fought with such vigour andvalour that their Japanese opponents wereconvinced they were facing a massive forceof defenders.

That is what the Australian fighting man isrenowned for and it is because of the legendof those heroes who unselfishly gave theirlives in very difficult circumstances on theKokoda Track. I join my parliamentary col-leagues on both sides of parliament in sup-porting the push to have the Kokoda Trackmade a national memorial in memory ofthose men who died so unselfishly in verydifficult circumstances.

Mr MURPHY (Lowe) (1.30 p.m.)—I be-gin by congratulating my good friend themember for Barker on his worthy motionbefore the House today. I endorse fully hisspeech and the speeches of the member forCowan and the member for Hume. In makingmy contribution to the debate, I wish to letmembers know that within my electorate ofLowe, which is on the shores of the Par-ramatta River, we have our own KokodaTrack Memorial Walkway. This rainforestwalkway is some 800 metres in length and itruns around Bray’s Bay between ConcordHospital, the famous repatriation hospital,and Rhodes railway station.

The origin of this walkway is found in theAustralia Remembers program, when theKeating government and the then Ministerfor Veterans’ Affairs, the Hon. Con Sciacca,announced plans for the walkway in 1994.The objective of building the walkway wasto provide a permanent memorial to all vet-erans who served in World War II, with par-ticular emphasis on the south-west Pacificarea. When the plans for the walkway wereannounced, Concord Council, Concord Ro-tary, the Returned Services League of Aus-tralia, the New South Wales Department ofUrban Affairs and Planning and Concord


Hospital all got behind this great project. Ialso acknowledge the Howard government’songoing support for the walkway and thecontribution by the Minister for Veterans’Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Scott. One of thegreat constants in Australian politics is thebipartisanship in this House for the veterancommunity, and rightly so.

I cannot let this occasion pass withoutgiving special recognition to the New SouthWales State President of the RSL andChairman of the Kokoda Track MemorialWalkway, Mr Rusty Priest AM, and the Di-rector of the Kokoda Track Memorial Walk-way, Ms Alice Kang, and her assistant, MsHilary Nourse. They have all done a mag-nificent job in promoting the walkway and inorganising numerous memorial services as-sociated with the walkway and ConcordHospital.

There are 22 stations along the walkwaythat reflect particular battles and events ofsignificance relating to the New Guineacampaign. Visitors can reflect on the serviceand sacrifice of our Australian soldiers ateach of the 22 stations: Milne Bay; McDon-ald’s Corner, the beginning of the KokodaTrack; Ower’s Corner, the end of the jeeptrack; Uberi, the first staging camp on theKokoda Track; Imita Ridge, the Australians’final defensive position; Ioribaiwa, the fur-thermost point of the Japanese advance;Menari; Efogi, the desperate battles of Mis-sion Ridge and Brigade Hill; Myola, theforward supply depot and medical post;Myola Ridge; Templeton’s Crossing, wherea determined Japanese rearguard delayed theAustralians; the Coast Watchers; Eora Creek,a bitter Japanese defensive battle in themountains; Isurava, the vital delaying battle;Deniki; Kokoda; Oivi, the death of Captain‘Uncle Sam’ Templeton; Gorari; Wairopi;Buna; Gona; and Sanananda, a bloody stale-mate and the climax of the Papuan campaign.

Rusty Priest reminded me last Friday,when I advised him that this motion wascoming before the House today, that mostAustralians will never see the Kokoda Trackin New Guinea. However, as Rusty pointedout, many Australians can come to Concordand Rhodes and journey along our KokodaTrack Memorial Walkway. I know that I

speak on behalf of Rusty Priest, Alice Kangand Hilary Nourse in issuing all members ofthis House, particularly the member forBarker, an invitation to visit the KokodaTrack Memorial Walkway in my electorateof Lowe. I know that they will be very wel-come. For the benefit of the House, I seekleave to table an information leaflet andsome supplementary information describingthe 22 stations and the Memorial Rose Gar-den, which comprise the Kokoda Track Me-morial Walkway in my electorate of Lowe.

Leave granted.Mr LLOYD (Robertson) (1.34 p.m.)—It

is indeed a pleasure and an honour to rise inthis House today to support the motion bymy good friend and colleague the memberfor Barker to develop a master plan for theKokoda Track and to establish it as a na-tional memorial park in memory of the manyyoung Australians who lost their lives on theKokoda Track. That would be a great symbolof the depth of feeling that Australians havefor those who fought on the Kokoda Trackand for the many who died on the KokodaTrack.

Australia and New Guinea are linked notonly geographically but also historically.Almost every person that you speak to inAustralia has some links with Papua NewGuinea, whether it be through working there,particularly prior to independence, throughhaving a father or grandfather who was aveteran of the Kokoda Track, or some otherlink with Papua New Guinea. It is importantthat we develop this master plan. There is aneed for a master plan because geographi-cally the Kokoda Track is in very difficultterrain. I have spoken to a number of peoplewho have walked the track. Unfortunately, Ihave not had the opportunity to do so, al-though my friend the MLC Charlie Lynn hastried on many occasions to encourage me toundertake the arduous track, but I have spo-ken to other colleagues, including the mem-ber for Gosford in New South Wales, who isa good friend of mine, Jackie Kelly, theMinister for Sport and Tourism, and SenatorJulian McGauran. They have all walked thetrack at some stage. One of the messages thatthey bring back is the mud. As ChrisHartcher said, ‘I cannot get out of my mind


the mud in walking that track.’ The entiretime that they struggled up and down theterrain, which is incredibly steep, there wasconstant mud—mud in the bed, mud in theboots, mud in the clothes and mud in theeyes. That was in peacetime, when they hadsupport. You can imagine the sacrifice andstruggle that our young veterans wentthrough when they were suddenly throwninto that area without support. That is themessage that came back from the people whohad walked the track. They mentioned theterrain of the track, how steep it is, and thegullies that they had to cross. There weregushing streams—one slip off the plank andyou knew that you would be dead.

It is a difficult thing but it is an essentialthing that has to be done to develop a masterplan so that this track can be dedicated as anational memorial park. As part of that plan,it is very important to have an all-weatherroad to Ower’s Corner. Many young Austra-lians backpack their way to Gallipoli everyAnzac Day, and many young Australianswould be very keen to participate in dawnservices at Ower’s Corner. Many peoplewould not be physically capable, or have thetime, to go along the whole of the track. So ifthere was an all-weather road to Ower’sCorner, we could have those dawn servicesand hundreds of Australians would be able toparticipate in them. That would be a furtherrecognition of what Australia owes to theyoung Australians and to the fuzzy wuzzyangels who supported them during the Sec-ond World War.

There are other ways in which we can as-sist. The Australian parliament works veryclosely with the parliament of Papua NewGuinea. As president of the friendship group,I am encouraged by our exchanges and theeducation process for the parliamentarians ofPapua New Guinea. Theirs is a young de-mocracy and they are still struggling to cometo terms with it. It is important that we helpthem through the process of our democracyand our system of parliament. I know thatthey have appreciated the number of ex-changes that we have been able to provide tohelp and encourage them in a stable democ-racy and a stable parliament which willhopefully bring them peace and stability. If

we are going to encourage young Australiansto go to Papua New Guinea, they have toknow that they can go there in safety and infriendship so that they can go and recognisethe sacrifices made by the young Australiansand the young Papua New Guinea peoplewho fought and died in the sacrifices of theSecond World War. (Time expired)

Ms GERICK (Canning) (1.39 p.m.)—Iam pleased today to add my support for thedevelopment of the Kokoda Track as a na-tional memorial park. I congratulate themember for Barker on bringing this issue tothe parliament, and I congratulate the previ-ous speakers.

As a Western Australian, it is importantfor me to note the contribution of the2nd/14th and the 2nd/16th Battalions, as theywere among the first of the AIF units sent upthe Kokoda Track. My dad was one of thosesoldiers and from early childhood I heard thetales of his time on the Kokoda Track andhow it rained every day; how difficult it wasto get supplies through; how often they wentwithout food because there was none; howdifficult it was to get the wounded out; howkind the fuzzy wuzzy angels were and howmany had died. Also, of course, you have toremember that those who came back hadmade a huge sacrifice as well—they had losttheir youth. If you had been one of those sol-diers going up the Kokoda Track and had todecide which of the wounded were likely tomake it, and which were sent back and whichwere not, that is not something you easilylive down and it is in your memory always.

As it is nearly 60 years since the battletook place, I think it is time that the soldiers’courage was recognised and that there is amemorial on the Kokoda Track to those wholost their lives. While most Australians arefamiliar with the major battles of World WarI, we need to do much more to increase theawareness of other conflicts which tookplace closer to our home. By supporting thebuilding of an all-weather road from Kokodato Ower’s Corner with educational memori-als at each battle site, another step is going tobe taken to ensure that the bravery of oursoldiers is never forgotten and that the gen-erations that come after ours will have theopportunity to pay tribute to that courage


shown by previous generations as they pro-tected the Australian way of life.

In the many battles that Australian sol-diers have fought, Kokoda was the first thatdirectly protected Australian shores. It was abattle where our soldiers were helped by thelocal people and, without their help, manymore soldiers would have died. In the prepa-ration of the memorial, it is important thatthe government and the people of PNG areinvolved and support the plans. The memo-rial should also pay tribute to the Papua NewGuineans who lost their lives, and those whocontinue to live who did everything to ensurethat our troops had as much safety and as-sistance as possible, for their contributionmust never ever be forgotten.

Like many Australians, I have alwaysthought that one day I would like to go upthe Kokoda Track and see where my fatherspent many of the war years. I think I wouldbe defeated by lack of fitness, so I was mostencouraged to hear that it is possible to drive.Improving the track will give many morepeople an opportunity to visit an importantpart of our history and it will ensure that ouryoung people go to New Guinea for AnzacDay in as large numbers as they go to Galli-poli. I also support the holding of the AnzacDay service next year. I spoke to my localRSLs and they were very enthusiastic aboutthat and already a great number are sayingthat they would love to attend.

For the veterans of Kokoda, the 60th an-niversary would be a special time to have thechance to return and attend a dawn service. Itis important that the country give the honourthat they deserve. In the building of this me-morial, not only will we be paying tribute tothose who lost their lives, we need also toremember the sacrifice of those who camehome and continued to make a contributionfor many years after the war. I do not thinkany of us knows any veteran who came backthe same person as they went away, and thatis something that must never be forgotten.Our country can never adequately thank theveterans and the people of PNG for theircourage, but this building of a national me-morial will make sure that their sacrifice isnever forgotten.

Mr SPEAKER—Order! The debate isadjourned and will be made an order of theday for the next sitting.

STATEMENTS BY MEMBERSGovernor-General: Working

ArrangementsMs ELLIS (Canberra) (1.44 p.m.)—It is

more in sorrow than in anger that I want tobring to the House’s attention the announce-ments in the press over the weekend in rela-tion to the indication from GovernmentHouse that our new Governor-General isgoing to be spending quite a bit more of histime in Sydney than in Canberra. I havenever had to make a speech that was havinga go at a Governor-General before and I amfinding it a little bit difficult—

Mr SPEAKER—I remind the memberfor Canberra that speeches that have a go atthe Governor-General are not in fact toler-ated in the chamber.

Ms ELLIS—I understand that, MrSpeaker, and that is why I am saying that theannouncement that has been made by thestaff at Government House in Canberra iswhat has really got me upset. I do not knowthe reason for the announcement. It is true tosay that Governors-General in the past havespent time in all places, including of courseAdmiralty House in Sydney. But I do notunderstand why there was the requirement inthis particular instance for such an an-nouncement to be made.

Canberra is in fact the national capital. Iam not standing here trying to defend it assuch so much as to remind everybody thatthat is the case. An announcement like thisbeing made yet again brings into questionCanberra and the ACT and their role as thenational capital. That is the point that I thinkwe need to make. I will certainly be makinginquiries through the secretary and the staffat Government House to ascertain the reasonfor such an announcement. (Time expired)Dairy Regional Assistance Program: Bega

CheeseMr NAIRN (Eden-Monaro) (1.45 p.m.)—

Last Monday, I was privileged to have offi-cially opened the new shredded cheese linein Bega Cheese’s factory. Building this newline was only possible due to a grant of over


$660,000 from the federal government’sDairy Regional Assistance Program. Overall,it was a $1.3 million investment in furthervalue adding for this great producer of dairyproducts. About seven new jobs were imme-diately created and when the second shiftstarts in a few months time over 20 new di-rect jobs will be in place.

The opening of this new manufacturingline also coincided with Bega Cheese’s an-nouncement that they had commissioned anemployment agency to start the recruitmentof between 120 and 150 additional people.These additional jobs will be required for the$16 million expansion of Bega Cheese’s cut-ting and packaging plant following anagreement with Bonlac and the New ZealandDairy Board. Bega Cooperative’s farmersrecently benefited from this agreement when$9 million in cash and $6 million in shareswere distributed to them.

The industry in the Bega Valley is in goodshape for the future and this is due to thevision of Bega Cheese, who saw the writingon the wall a decade ago with regards tochanges in their industry, and to their part-nership with the coalition federal govern-ment, which has provided practical assis-tance resulting in huge investment and alarge increase in the number of new jobs inthe Bega Valley. This is in stark contrastwith Labor’s proposals of more committeesand more meetings. Well done to the boardof Bega Cheese and its dairy farmer owners.

Banking: Branch ClosuresMr RUDD (Griffith) (1.47 p.m.)—Last

Thursday, I was able to attend a protestmeeting outside the Morningside branch ofthe Commonwealth Bank in Brisbane. TheCommonwealth Bank—‘Which bank?’—announced unilaterally that it was going towithdraw its services from the residents ofMorningside, bringing to a total some 18branches of the major four banks on Bris-bane’s south side which have closed over thelast five years.

I sought a meeting with the state managerof the Commonwealth Bank in Brisbane andasked him what the reasons for this particularclosure were. He said to me that it was sim-ply because the bank had ceased to be ‘prof-

itable’. I asked the state manager if he coulddefine for me what profitability meant and totell me how far below the line that branchhad fallen. Of course, he refused to do so.

It was not, I think, an unreasonable ask toput to the bank that they should let commu-nities know one year in advance if they areplanning to shut a branch and the extent towhich profitability is under threat, so that thecommunity has an opportunity to rise to theoccasion and make more use of that branchso there is some chance for the branch to beretained. They point-blank refuse to accedeto that request. I am extremely disappointedthat is the case and I look forward to the op-portunity of seeing further active competitionin the banking sector from community banksin order to give people who use banks in lo-cal suburban areas a better go. The Com-monwealth Bank—‘Which bank?’—hasplainly fallen short of its responsibilities andit is time for the parliament to contemplatelegislation for the imposition of a charter ofsocial responsibility on banks. They plainlydo not intend to do so themselves. (Time ex-pired)

Motor Vehicles: MitsubishiMr PYNE (Sturt) (1.48 p.m.)—I would

like to comment briefly on the announcementmade last week by Mitsubishi about the deci-sion to upgrade and redesign the existingMagna and Verada range of motor vehiclesin South Australia. This is fantastic news forthe workers at Mitsubishi, for South Austra-lia and for Adelaide in particular. Mitsubishihave been the subject for a number of yearsof sometimes irresponsible media reportageabout their commitment to Australia and toAdelaide but, happily, Mitsubishi have con-tinued and have started to turn the corner interms of profitability. This year, they haveindicated that in the next 12 months they willin fact again make a profit. They haveweathered the storm of the changes beingmade at their parent company level and theworkers and employer at Mitsubishi shouldbe congratulated for working so closely to-gether to make themselves an attractive areafor investment.

The announcement that was made lastweek while the Prime Minister was visitingJapan was very welcome to the residents of


Adelaide and to the workers at Mitsubishi. Itcomes on top of announcements about exportdeals to the United States, and it is notewor-thy that Mitsubishi are the only vehiclemanufacturer in Australia that exports to theUnited States. I have congratulated them onthat before and I congratulate them again.They are making great progress for theirworkers and for their employers and they area good example of how work forces canwork together to bring about change, reformand progress—unlike what we are seeing atthe moment in Sydney at Tristar. Let us hopethat that resolves itself as well.

Chisholm Electorate: Proposed St Leo’sSite Development

Ms BURKE (Chisholm) (1.50 p.m.)—Notevery piece of open space in Victoria has tobe turned into medium density housing. I amcalling on commonsense to prevail in myelectorate of Chisholm in respect of the de-velopment of the old St Leo’s site at HayStreet, Box Hill. The proposed developmentof this unique bit of open space is sheer lu-nacy. The prospect of 300 three-storey unitscrammed into suburbia is just not warranted.The loss of open space, the increase of trafficinto a tiny side street and the pressure onexisting services—particularly the stormwater—is questionable and the planning pro-cess cannot ignore the impost on the manyindustrial sites that surround the proposeddevelopment.

I wish to applaud the work of concernedlocal residents, who have so far amassed apetition of over 300 signatures and who aremeeting this weekend to ensure that a unitedcommunity voice is heard in respect of thisdevelopment. The local community is sick ofbeing the forgotten party in these decisionsand I am fully supportive of all efforts toensure no further inappropriate developmentsrob us of our status as the leafy green sub-urbs.

Hawkesbury-Nepean CatchmentManagement Trust

Mr BARTLETT (Macquarie) (1.51p.m.)—Several months ago, the New SouthWales Labor government decided to axe theHawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Manage-ment Trust. This appalling decision was a

betrayal of the local environment and a be-trayal of Sydney’s main river system. Thetrust had played a critical role in its man-agement. It had provided an independentvoice on ideas affecting the catchment, it hadled the way in creating community aware-ness and galvanising community action onissues affecting the river system, it had coor-dinated the work of the government and non-government agencies whose work impactedon the catchment and it had very effectivelyattracted funding from a range of sources forlocal environmental projects.

After four months the Carr governmenthas still done nothing to fill the void. Itsfunctions were supposedly to be absorbed bythe Department of Land and Water Conser-vation, but so far they seem to have disap-peared without a trace. One of the manyproblems emerging is the removal of themechanism for attracting local funding underthe federal government’s Natural HeritageTrust. The catchment trust had previouslyfulfilled the role of the regional assessmentpanel in facilitating and evaluating applica-tions for federal funding. Under the NHT,funding of over $3 million has flowed fromthe federal government to local environ-mental groups carrying out valuable conser-vation and restoration projects. Unless theDLWC quickly moves to set up a replace-ment process, federal funds may be harderfor local groups to access. This potentially isone of the many adverse effects of the stategovernment’s hasty and ill conceived deci-sion. The DLWC is simply not able to ade-quately fulfil the roles of the trust. Not onlyhas the state government removed directfunding, it has made it harder to attract otherfunding. (Time expired)

Braddon Electorate: Bride of the YearEvent

Mr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (1.53p.m.)—On Saturday evening I had the pleas-ure of attending the Bride of the Year even-ing at the Civic Centre in Ulverstone. Tenmagnificent brides presented themselves inaid of the Tasmanian Sudden Infant DeathSociety—a very worthy cause. I have thegreat privilege of announcing that RebeccaChakouch from Devonport, Cassandra Galefrom Ulverstone, Jasmin Lamprey from


Turners Beach, Hannah Larkin from Latrobe,Sharee Maloney from Turners Beach, PetaMcKenzie from Devonport, StephanieOverton from Devonport, Diane Thomasfrom Ulverstone, Ruth van Rooyen fromBurnie and Michelle Smith from Burnie pre-sented themselves. Ruth van Rooyen won theaudience vote, the judges voted StephanieOverton as the Bride of the Year and PetaMcKenzie from Devonport was the CharityBride.

Alderman Marie Gill, Mrs MarjorieHaines and Mr Paul Harris were the judgingpanel, and we thank them very much. BevTwibell and her SIDS committee organised amagnificent evening. Entertainment was pre-sented by Mr John Handy, the Burnie High-land Pipe Band, Lyn and Eric Emmertonfrom Circular Head and Peter Shirley, a vio-linist. Most importantly, the brides of theyear all spoke about the possibility of beingblessed with children in the future. They re-alise that there is the potential of unfortunatemisadventure at childbirth and that the Sud-den Infant Death Society plays a very im-portant role in assuring parents of assistanceand help at that time. (Time expired)

New England Electorate: RegionalDevelopment

Mr St CLAIR (New England) (1.54p.m.)—During the five-week break I wasable to visit, for the third year running, manysmall towns and villages in my electorate. Ivisited about 54 this year. I went to Armi-dale, Ashford, Attunga, Barraba, Bendemeer,Ben Lomond, Bingara, Bonshaw, Bundarra,Currabubula, Deepwater, Delungra, Drake,Duri, Ebor, Emmaville, Georges Junction,Gilgai, Glen Innes, Glencoe, Graman, Guyra,Hillgrove, Inverell, Invergowrie, Kentucky,Kingstown, Kootingal, Legume, Liston,Manilla, Mingoola, Moombi, Niangala,Nowendoc, Nundle, Somerton, Tamworth,Tenterfield, Tingha, Torrington, Upper Hor-ton, Uralla, Urbenville, Walcha, Wallangra,Watsons Creek, Werris Creek, Wollomombi,Woolbrook, Woolomin, Yarrowitch and Yet-man.

I drove over 11,000 kilometres and, inholding meetings in not only those majortowns but the smaller communities aroundthe New England, it was certainly a rejuve-

nation for me to see practically what thesepeople are doing in some of the more remoteareas, away from some of the major centres.For those of us in regional Australia and forthe 14 local governments that I have in myelectorate, the Roads to Recovery program—and I drove over many of the roads—is verymuch delivering tangible results for the peo-ple who do live out of the way. The samemay be said of the mobile phone towers—(Time expired)

Taiwanese Community, BrisbaneMr EMERSON (Rankin) (1.56 p.m.)—I

want to pay tribute in the federal parliamentto the Taiwanese community of Brisbane.Taiwanese people who have decided to makeBrisbane their home are making an enormouscontribution to the development of south-eastQueensland and to strengthening the socialfabric of our community. Taiwanese peoplehave a well deserved reputation as successfulbusiness people. Through their industrious-ness and their investment activities, Taiwan-ese business people are lifting the livingstandards of the residents of south-eastQueensland.

These are well acknowledged facts. Lesswell acknowledged but no less important isthe contribution of the local Taiwanesecommunity to strengthening our society. Thecharitable works of such organisations as theTaiwan Women’s League, the TaiwanFriendship Association and the Friends ofAustralasian Youth Association are greatlyappreciated. These organisations are assist-ing the less fortunate in our community. TheTaiwan Women’s League is especially activein these charitable works. At the same time,the tireless work of these organisations isenhancing the reputation of the Taiwanesepeople in the community. Congratulations toMimi Chang upon becoming President of theTaiwan Women’s League, and thanks toMary Lee, who did such a wonderful job aslast year’s president. My federal Labor col-league the member for Ryan, Leonie Short,joined me at a terrific changeover ceremonyfor the Taiwan Women’s League. Leonie is agreat supporter of the Taiwanese community,which is very well represented in her seat ofRyan, and she represents them very well.


Congratulations too to Stephen Huang onbecoming President of the Taiwan Friend-ship Association, and many thanks to AngelaChai for all her great work as the last presi-dent. Thanks also to Michelle Lee, who aspresident guided the Friends of AustralasianYouth Association through last year, andbest wishes to Jason Lin in his job as the newpresident. (Time expired)

Motor Vehicles: MitsubishiDr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (1.57

p.m.)—I also rise to welcome the $70 millionin new investment in the Mitsubishi car plantin my electorate of Boothby, which was an-nounced during the Prime Minister’s visit toTokyo. The announcement was welcomenews to Mitsubishi’s 3,500 car workers andtheir families in Adelaide. Automotive vehi-cles and parts is a $17 billion industry, whichnow exports over $4 billion. The way to enduncertainty at Mitsubishi and also within theindustry is to focus on companies beingprofitable and the work force being produc-tive and an export culture.

Contrast this with the behaviour of theAMWU. We can debate the issue of work-ers’ entitlements another day, but let us lookat the industrial action that they instigatedand what they put at risk. Last week the fac-tories of the two largest car companies in myelectorate—Monroe and Mitsubishi—weresilent due to the Tristar strike in Sydney.Today there are ads in the local paper tellingthe work force not to come to work, againdue to the Tristar strike. It came at the worstpossible time and no doubt reignited in Japanthe stereotypes of a generation ago—Austra-lia as a country of industrial confrontation,strikes and an inefficient waterfront. Thisdispute highlights one of the key questions tobe answered at the next election: what willan ALP government do when faced with aconflict between the national interest and theinterest of one trade union? The Leader ofthe Opposition should stare down theAMWU. All I heard last week on this issuewas silence.

Oxley Electorate: GleanersMr RIPOLL (Oxley) (1.59 p.m.)—In the

very short time I have, I would like to put onthe record the great work of an organisation

called the Gleaners in my electorate. Theyhave set up five establishments now, the lat-est one being in Inala, which I opened. Theyprovide food at cost or below cost, or actu-ally give away food parcels to families thatare struggling to get by. This highlights thegreat community need not only in my areabut in the region of Oxley. People are suf-fering a lot under the imposition of the GSTand, particularly with inflation, the risingcost of living. It is ordinarily families likethese that need these services the most. (Timeexpired)

Mr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m.,in accordance with standing order 106A thetime for members’ statements has concluded.

MEMBER SWORNMr SPEAKER—I have received a return

to the writ which I issued on 1 June 2001 forthe election of a member to serve for theelectoral division of Aston, in the state ofVictoria, in place of Mr Peter Nugent. By theendorsement on the writ, it is certified thatChristopher John Pearce has been elected.

Mr Christopher John Pearce made andsubscribed the oath of allegiance.

Mr SPEAKER—Order! On behalf of theHouse, I welcome the new member for As-ton.

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTSMr HOWARD (Bennelong—Prime Min-

ister)—I inform the House that the DeputyPrime Minister and Minister for Transportand Regional Services will be absent fromquestion time today due to illness. The Min-ister for Trade will be answering questions inhis absence.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICETaxation: Income

Mr BEAZLEY (2.03 p.m.)—My questionis to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister,didn’t you promise at the National PressClub to deliver a fistful of dollars in incometax cuts and to provide specific details beforethe next federal election? Prime Minister,haven’t you already taken back those incometax cuts, according to an article in the Aus-tralian newspaper today? Prime Minister,will you or won’t you be promising incometax cuts at the next election?


Mr HOWARD—The answer is that thereis a very clear difference: if there is an avail-able surplus, he will spend it; if there is anavailable surplus, we will give it back viaincome tax cuts. Nothing will alter that;nothing that appears anywhere will alter thatunassailable difference. This is the firstquestion in parliament after returning from afive-week recess, and I thank the Leader ofthe Opposition most warmly for enabling meto point out once more to the Australian peo-ple that if there is an available surplus wewill return it via income tax cuts, but he willspend it. So let the Australian people under-stand that, when it comes to tax, that is thedifference between us. I warmly thank theLeader of the Opposition for giving me suchan early opportunity to define the differencebetween the government and the opposition.

Taxation: Wholesale Sales TaxDr SOUTHCOTT (2.05 p.m.)—My

question is addressed to the Prime Minister.Is the Prime Minister aware of any recentresearch into the adequacy of Australia’sprevious wholesale sales tax system? Doesthis research have any implications for theability to fund public services over the com-ing decades? In particular, in the absence ofthe GST, what would be the implications forpersonal income tax rates in the future?

Mr HOWARD—I have come acrosssome research, and that research underpinsand very strongly supports the government’shistoric decision to introduce major reformsto Australia’s taxation system. This researchfrom Access Economics demonstrates thatthe introduction of the goods and services taxas part of tax reform has added to the capac-ity of Australia to fund the services that willbe needed for an ageing population over theyears ahead. It demonstrates very dramati-cally that if we had continued to rely on thefavoured indirect tax system of the LaborParty—that is, the wholesale sales tax sys-tem; the system they voted to retain when taxreform was introduced—we would face in-creasing difficulty in funding the servicesneeded for an ageing population in thiscountry. We hear a lot from the Labor Partyabout the need to have adequate public serv-ices. You cannot have adequate public serv-ices unless you have an adequate tax base.

That is one of the main reasons why we em-braced the introduction of a broad based in-direct tax; namely, a goods and services tax.

What Access has done in this research isto examine what the ageing populationmeans for Australia’s indirect tax base and,in particular, how a continuation of the salestax base may have fared compared with thenew tax system. Access found that, over thelast 25 years, the sales tax base declinedrelative to consumer spending. The sales taxbase fell from 24.5 per cent of total con-sumer spending in 1975 to only 18.4 per centat the time of its abolition. It was projectedby Access that, if the decline had continued,the sales tax base would have fallen to only14.4 per cent of total consumer spending bythe year 2030. That is a decline of 10 percent, from 24.5 per cent in 1975. Those fig-ures demonstrate the critical need to broaden,strengthen and deepen Australia’s indirecttax base.

That is why the states like the GST. Theymay say otherwise, but the reason that BobCarr and Peter Beattie literally ran to grabthe fountain pen out of my hand to sign thatinterstate agreement was that they knew that,over the years, the growth in revenue fromthe GST would make it easier for them toprovide the services that they are obligated toprovide. If the government had not intro-duced a goods and services tax, we wouldhave been failing in our responsibility to se-cure the revenue base to provide services foryears into the future. Those who seek to un-dermine the GST are seeking to undermineAustralia’s capacity to look after an ageingpopulation. Those who seek to roll back theGST, allegedly in the name of fairness, are infact arguing to roll back our capacity to fundnecessary welfare services into the yearsahead.

Worse than that, the Access Economicsreport illustrates that, if we had not intro-duced a GST, not only would we have had afailing and declining, deteriorating and with-ering wholesale sales tax base but also tocompensate for the revenue decline wewould have had to increase income tax at afast rate. Access makes it very clear that thealternative to the present tax base is higherincome tax. That is why the Leader of the


Opposition said with some vigour on the eveof the Aston by-election, ‘I don’t believe thatincome tax in Australia is too high.’ Whenthe Leader of the Opposition says that, he isreally saying, ‘Give me an opportunity andI’ll jack it up.’ That is what the Leader of theOpposition is really saying.

The research of Access Economics dem-onstrates and validates the courage of thegovernment’s decision to introduce a broadbased indirect tax. Not only has it enabled usto reduce personal income tax, not only has itaided our exports and not only has it aided usto make the whole tax base more efficient; ithas also provided Australia with the capacityto fund the services for an ageing populationyears into the future—something that theLabor Party has pledged to reverse throughits commitment to a policy of roll-back.

Taxation: IncomeMr CREAN (2.10 p.m.)—My question is

to the Prime Minister. I refer to his first an-swer today in which he said that he did notknow what he was going to do on income taxuntil he knows the state of the books. PrimeMinister, will you respond to Labor’s calland bring forward Treasury’s report on thestate of the books so that you can then tell uswhether you are going to offer income taxcuts or not?

Mr HOWARD—I am just struggling toremember which Labor Party charter ofbudget honesty that question is based on. Iam just trying to remember; perhaps theTreasurer can help me. What was the bill thatthe Labor Party introduced when it was ingovernment, requiring retiring finance min-isters and Treasurers—like the Leader of theOpposition—to come clean with the Austra-lian public? This is a question from a deputyleader of an opposition that, when it was ingovernment, did not have a charter of budgethonesty. For 13 years, it had no charter ofbudget honesty. More than that, Mr Crean isdeputy to a man who was finance minister inthe Keating government and who, on thatoccasion, ran around during the electioncampaign saying that the budget was robus-tly in surplus. Mr Beazley said, ‘Let there beno doubt about it; we are in surplus.’

When we got into government, we foundthat, far from being in surplus, Labor wasrunning a deficit of $10½ billion in the fi-nancial year to June 1996 and we inherited a$96 billion government debt. By the end ofthis financial year, we will have repaid $58billion of that $96 billion. We will have oneof the lowest, if not the lowest, governmentdebt to GDP ratios in the world at 6.4 percent. To add insult to injury, the Labor Partytried every inch of the way to stop us doingour duty to the Australian people. And youhave the nerve to ask me about a charter ofbudget honesty!

Economy: Trade FiguresMr WAKELIN (2.14 p.m.)—My question

is addressed to the Treasurer. Would theTreasurer advise the House of the June tradefigures released last week by the AustralianBureau of Statistics? Would he also providethe House with an update on the state of theeconomy?

Mr COSTELLO—I thank the honour-able member for Grey for his question. I canreport to the House that the trade figures forJune this year showed a very healthy surplusof $537 million. Not only that, but four ofthe last five monthly balances were in sur-plus—not in deficit, but in surplus—and, inthe year ending June 2001, Australia turned atrade surplus of $0.7 billion. We have be-come so accustomed to talking about tradedeficits in Australia that I would like to re-emphasise that, in the year to 30 June 2001,Australia had a trade surplus of $0.7 billion.The value of goods and services exportswere up 13.3 per cent over that year, and inimportant areas for rural Australia there wasstrong growth in export income. The value ofmeat and meat preparations exports grew 29per cent over the year to 30 June 2001, wooland sheepskin exports grew 31 per cent overthe year to 30 June 2001, and service exportsgrew to be 6½ per cent higher than in June2000. This was undoubtedly helped by theexchange rate, particularly against the USdollar, which has meant that, notwithstand-ing a slowing world economy, Australia’sexports have grown.

In addition, I think we can now say thatone of the greatest things that could havebeen done for Australia’s export industry


was to take taxes off Australian exports. Thatcould not have been done without tax reform.It was the Australian Labor Party that be-lieved we should tax Australian exporters. Ifthe Australian Labor Party were still in of-fice, Australia’s farmers and other exporterswould be paying taxes on their exports tocompete against others internationally whoexport into the world tax free.

This was a policy of Labor to export jobs.When we turned around and changed thetaxation system, who opposed it? The Aus-tralian Labor Party. They never gave Austra-lia’s export industries a go. Undoubtedly, therise in Australia’s exports also had a lot to dowith making our waterfront more efficient.Once you could get continuity of supplyacross Australia’s waterfront and continuityof supply in relation to exports, Australianexporters were given a much better show oninternational markets.

I was also asked about the state of theeconomy. I can report to the House that overthe last week there have been not only goodtrade figures but also significant pick-ups inother areas of the economy. Building ap-provals rose strongly ahead of the GST andfell away sharply thereafter and in Julyshowed another increase of three per centover June, which was an increase of 24.7 percent over May. Retail trade for the month ofJune showed a solid increase of 1.1 per centin real terms, no doubt fed by lower incometaxes paid by ordinary Australian familiesnow having the opportunity to spend more.The ANZ job ads, which were released to-day, showed that the number of job ads in-creased two per cent in July. This is fed backinto business and consumer sentiment, bothrecording strong rises in May, June andJuly—indicative of an economy which isstrengthening over the second part of 2001.As reported by, I think, the NAB survey, theAustralian economy, in the second part of2001 and into 2002, is expected to be thefastest growing economy amongst the na-tions of the developed world.

I think that will give pleasure to nearly allAustralians who believe that there should bea stronger Australian economy and that weshould help exporters. Unfortunately, thereare some Australians who took great delight

in hoping that the Australian economy wouldturn down. But the doomsayers were provedwrong: the March quarter was strong, theeconomy will strengthen in the latter part of2001 and Australia will be one of the fastestgrowing developed nations in the world into2002, which will be good news for Austra-lians and good news for job creation nextyear.

Goods and Services Tax: AccessEconomics Report

Mr CREAN (2.18 p.m.)—My question isagain to the Prime Minister, and it refers toanother answer he gave earlier today inquoting the report by Access Economics.Prime Minister, is this the same report thatsays that ‘the GST tax base will graduallyfall as the share of total consumer spending’because of the ‘exclusion of health services’?Prime Minister, why didn’t you mention thatin your answer? Isn’t it because you want toput the GST on health services or to raise theGST rate—it is just that you will not tellanyone until after the next election?

Mr HOWARD—I did not mention that,but I also did not mention that the GST taxbase will benefit from the exclusion of edu-cational services—the growth in which willbe held back by stagnant numbers of agegroups in which most education occurs. Thereality is that this report—and I am delightedthat you have asked me a question about it; itallows me to table it—is not good news andnot good reading for the Australian LaborParty. This report demonstrates that the La-bor Party was tying itself to a steadily di-minishing sales tax base.

I hear the Leader of the Opposition andthe Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying,‘Let’s have a debate about tax.’ And I sayamen to that! By all means, let us have a de-bate about tax. But, if you are going to havea comprehensive debate about tax, you haveto be reminded what Labor stands for. Laborstands for a sales tax. Labor voted against theGST. Labor stood month after month in thischamber and in the Senate and voted to de-fend the wholesale sales tax system. Inci-dentally, according to this report—which theDeputy Leader of the Opposition thinks isgood news—the sales tax base was some24.5 per cent of total consumer spending in


1975, it has now declined to 18.4 per cent,and it is projected by Access Economics tohave declined to 14.4 per cent of consumerspending by 2030.

What the Labor Party were really sayingwas that, in government, they would con-tinue to rely on a wholesale sales tax basethat was falling in the face of an ageingpopulation and a rise in demand for services.The only result of that, in the absence of aGST, was that you would have to increaseincome tax. Every road the Labor Party takeleads back to higher income taxes under aLabor government. Every single path theypoint out, every single road they take, leadsto the fact that the election of a Labor gov-ernment means higher income taxes. Theydefend an indirect tax base that was declin-ing and they attack one that is rising becauseit is based on a growing economy. They ar-gue that income tax is not too high. Theypromise to spend more money, to maintainthe surplus and to guarantee the state. In theface of all of that, there is only one thing ingovernment you could possibly do, and thatis to put up income tax. I table the AccessEconomics report.

Worplace Relations: Disputes andWorkers’ Entitlements

Mrs DRAPER (2.23 p.m.)—My questionis to the Minister for Employment, Work-place Relations and Small Business. Wouldthe minister inform the House of the latestindustrial dispute figures? Have this gov-ernment’s policies helped to create a harmo-nious and productive workplace environmentand to safeguard workers’ entitlements? Arethere any alternative policies in this area?

Mr ABBOTT—I thank the member forMakin for her question about disputation inthe workplace and protection of employeeentitlements. I am pleased to tell the Housethat, in the 12 months to April this year, only49 working days were lost per 1,000 em-ployees. I am pleased to say that this is thelowest number of days lost since this serieswas first kept in 1982. On other measures,the level of industrial disputation is the low-est since records were first kept, back in1913.

As members would be aware, there is avery significant industrial dispute going onright now in the motor industry, which hasresulted in the stand-down of 12,000 work-ers. I am afraid that this is a foretaste of whatwould happen under a Beazley government.Last year the Leader of the Opposition saidthat Labor would permit industry widestrikes. Under any regime which permitsindustry wide strikes, the level of industrialdisputation would return to the bad old daysof the 1970s when Australia was an interna-tional bad joke for industrial disputation.

I have also been asked about protection ofentitlements. Let me make it very clear thatthis government believes that loss of entitle-ments is a disaster for the people concerned,and that is why this government has put inplace a safety net scheme to protect workers’entitlements. Let me put this matter in con-text. In any one year, just one-half of one percent of businesses will go bankrupt and justone-tenth of one per cent of employees willface a possible loss of entitlements. The gov-ernment’s position is that entitlements shouldbe paid, preferably by the employer whoowes that entitlement to the worker. But, inthe event of a business ceasing to trade andbeing unable to pay workers’ entitlements,this government has put a safety net schemein place to help. Let me make it very clearthat this is the first government in Australia’shistory to put such a scheme in place. Nostate Labor government has ever put ascheme in place. The former federal Laborgovernment put no scheme in place, eventhough they presided over some monumentalbankruptcies: the Tricontinental collapse, theQintex collapse, the Bond Corporation col-lapse, and the Pyramid Building Societycollapse. Throughout 13 years of Labor gov-ernment, there was no government scheme toprotect employee entitlements. I have to sayof this government’s scheme that it does notencourage people to ramp up their entitle-ments, but most of all it is a scheme whichdoes not cost jobs—unlike the alternatives onoffer.

Labor’s basic scheme, a 0.1 per cent levyon all payrolls in the country, could cost upto 5,000 jobs. Labor’s deluxe scheme, theManusafe scheme, could cost up to 10,000


jobs in the motor industry alone. So far thisgovernment has paid out $9 million under itsentitlements scheme to 4,500 workers whohave lost entitlements. These workers wouldhave received double that amount if thestates had paid their fair share under the gov-ernment’s scheme. If members opposite werereally concerned about workers’ entitle-ments, if they really wanted to do the rightthing by workers rather than simply makepolitical points and grandstand, they wouldget on the phone to the state premiers andsay, ‘Don’t wait. Do it now—join the federalgovernment’s scheme.’

Workplace Relations: Workers’Entitlements

Mr BEAZLEY (2.28 p.m.)—My questionis also to the Minister for Employment,Workplace Relations and Small Business.Minister, can you explain why the workers atTristar Steering and Suspension are not ableto access the same government scheme thatallowed the employees of National Textilesto recover 100 per cent of their legal entitle-ments? Isn’t it the case that the dispute atTristar is a direct result of your failure toguarantee 100 per cent of employees’ legallyaccrued entitlements? Minister, why is it in-dustrial treason for the workers at Tristar toexercise their lawful rights under your in-dustrial relations system to get the same out-come, should their company go broke, asyour government provided to Stan Howard’scompany at taxpayers’ expense?

Mr ABBOTT—There is a fundamentaldifference between the workers at Tristar andthe workers that the Leader of the Oppositionhas referred to.

Opposition members interjecting—Mr SPEAKER—The same courtesy as I

expect to be extended to the Leader of theOpposition will be extended to the minister.

Mr ABBOTT—Tristar is a going con-cern; Tristar is a perfectly good company.Tristar is a company that wants to work andis being prevented from working because ofthe actions of the people supported by theLeader of the Opposition. Let me make itvery clear: this industrial action at Tristar isnot about workers’ entitlements. The com-pany has offered to protect workers’ entitle-

ments. This is not about workers’ entitle-ments; it is about union power. It is about aunion controlled fund designed to increaseunion power.

Let it be very clear what the issue is here.This government supports workers’ entitle-ments. Members opposite support unionpower. This government is opposed to thisstrike against the national interest. Membersopposite do support the strike at Tristar.Members opposite support industrial actionwhich has currently caused 12,000 workersto be stood down. That is what members op-posite support. They support workers beingforced to stand down. Let me make thisclear: there is no legislation in the world thatcan prevent union bloody-mindedness. Butthis government will always oppose that kindof behaviour; it will never pander to it, and itwill never make excuses for it like membersopposite do.

Taxation: Government PolicyMr PEARCE (2.31 p.m.)—My question

is addressed to the Treasurer. Would theTreasurer please advise the House if Austra-lians should pay more tax.

Mr COSTELLO—It is an honour to takea question from the new member for Aston.His predecessor was held in very high es-teem in this House. We congratulate the newmember on his election and we hope he has avery successful political career. This gov-ernment believes that for ordinary hard-working decent Australians the income taxrate should be kept as low as possible. Thatis one of the reasons why this governmentcut income taxes on 1 July of last year. Wecut $12 billion from Australia’s incometaxes. For people on average earnings—andthere would be a lot of them, I think, in theAston electorate—that means that, instead ofhaving Labor’s top marginal rate of 43c inthe dollar, under the coalition they face a topmarginal rate of only 30c in the dollar. Thatis 13c in the dollar off that top marginal ratefor the average income earner.

Indeed, after you take into account theabolition of wholesale sales tax and the abo-lition of bed tax and their replacement withGST, along with the reductions in personalincome tax, the cuts in petrol excise, par-


ticularly for transport, the increase in familytax payment A and family tax payment B,the net reduction in the overall tax liabilityfor Australians on 1 July last year wasaround $6 billion—$6 billion that was re-turned to the people of Australia.

Unfortunately, I must tell the member forAston that there are some people in thisHouse who think that Australians should bepaying higher taxes. As hard as it is to be-lieve, there are people who do not believe inkeeping income taxes low for strugglingmiddle income families in Australia. Themember for Aston will recall being out at theKnox shopping centre two days before theAston by-election, when there was an inter-view with Mr Neil Mitchell of 3AW, whoasked the Leader of the Opposition thisquestion:... are they—

and he meant Australians—paying too much income tax?

Mr Beazley said:No I don’t believe so and I will say that withsome vigour.

So he has finally got vigorous about some-thing. He is vigorous about the fact thatAustralians do not pay too much income tax.We have heard him be expansive in the past,and we have heard him be prolix, but now hehas got vigorous about the fact that peopleare not paying too much income tax. Ofcourse, if he had his way, they would bepaying a lot more income tax. That is whatwe know.

The interesting thing about this vigorousstatement on the eve of the Aston by-electionwas that it was in the wake of a policywhich, halfway into question time, we havenot heard mentioned yet. It was in the wakeof the noodle nation. The Leader of the Op-position during the Aston by-election wasgoing to take the high road of, ‘What weneed is a noodle nation: more spending paidfor by more income tax.’ He lasted all ofabout an hour because, after this little deba-cle on 3AW, remember, he called the pressback in and said, no, that was not going to behis policy at all. He is presumably going tofund noodle nation from some other proceedswhich are yet to be discovered.

Let me tell you why the Labor Party arenow in so much trouble on tax: because forthe last four years they have been conductingone of the lowest, most populist campaignsimaginable, trying to pretend to the Austra-lian people that the Australian people couldhave decent social services, whilst opposinga GST and supporting a wholesale salestax—a wholesale sales tax which all of thedeveloped world has now given up. The La-bor Party would have you believe that, alongwith Swaziland, Australia could be the onlycountry that had a narrow indirect tax base.If we are to have a narrow indirect tax base,the corollary of that is that we must reweighttax out of the indirect tax base to where?There is only one place other than indirecttaxes: direct taxes.

That was also the statement that theLeader of the Opposition made on the eve ofthe by-election in Aston. He said, ‘I believewe should reweight out of indirect tax intodirect tax.’ Roll-back of GST means rollingup your income tax. That means reweightingout of indirect tax into direct tax. That is justto fund the roll backwards of GST. It is theonly political party in the developed worldthat wants to roll back out of a broad basedindirect tax to a narrow based indirect taxsystem. The consequence of that alone is toroll up income tax. But, when you add into itfunding noodle nation and all sorts of otherpromises that the Labor Party has put outthere, it comes back to one proposition, asthe Leader of the Opposition said with somevigour: Australians do not pay too much in-come tax. He thinks they should pay more.

This is the reason why ‘roll-backwards’can never be released. When roll-backwardswas first announced, roll-backwards wasgoing to cover everything. We were going toroll backwards right out of a GST and rightover to the wholesale sales tax. Roll-backwards has now become the policy whichdare not speak its name. We cannot be toldwhere we are going to roll backwards. Wecannot be told how much we are going to rollbackwards. It disappears by the minute, be-cause we know that the further you rollbackwards the more you roll up those in-come taxes. This is a political party whichhas turned its face on modernity; it has


turned its face on practice right throughoutthe developed world. It has one spectacle andone spectacle only for Australia: higher taxeson capital, higher taxes on business, fewerjobs and higher income taxes. We on thisside of the House believe that ordinary,hardworking, average Australians ought tohave lower income taxes, they should get tokeep more of what they earn, they shoulddecide where they want to spend it and theyshould not be funding all of these fantasies ofa socialist ALP government.Employee Entitlements Support Scheme

Mr BEVIS (2.39 p.m.)—My question isaddressed to the Minister for Employment,Workplace Relations and Small Business.Minister, do you recall saying on the Insidersprogram yesterday:If the States join our scheme, it would providepeople with on average up to 70 per cent of theirentitlements in the event of a company goingunder and not being able to pay them.

If this is so, what has happened to thescheme which allowed workers at NationalTextiles to recover 100 per cent of their enti-tlements when it went broke? Doesn’t it existany more? Minister, haven’t you now ad-mitted, at last, that the Stan Howard-NationalTextiles payout was the one and only opera-tion of this stand-alone scheme and, contraryto your answer to the last question, thescheme has not been made available to anyworkers in any other company that has be-come insolvent?

Mr ABBOTT—The fundamental differ-ence between the matter that the member forBrisbane raises and other matters is that thestate Labor government was prepared to beinvolved. That is the fundamental difference.The only situation of loss of employee enti-tlements that any state government has beenprepared to be involved in was the NationalTextiles matter. I repeat: workers would re-ceive a much greater share of any entitle-ments owing to them if the state Labor gov-ernments would get involved. I urge themember for Brisbane, if he is really con-cerned about this, to get on the phone to BobCarr and tell him to support other situations.That is what Labor members should do: geton the phone to their state colleagues and tellthem to back the government’s scheme.


Mr PYNE (2.41 p.m.)—My question isaddressed to the Minister for Employment,Workplace Relations and Small Business.Would the minister inform the House of thegovernment’s position on the current disputein the car industry? What are the conse-quences of the dispute at Tristar for workersin the motor vehicle industry, and are thereany alternative positions?

Mr ABBOTT—I thank the member forSturt for his question. I can understand hisconcerns because many of his constituentsare currently stood down as a result of thestrike action at Tristar. Let me make it veryclear what the government’s position is. Webelieve that this is a strike against the na-tional interest and that it should end as soonas possible. Mr Speaker, 12,000 workershave already been stood down as a result ofthis strike, and thousands more will be stooddown this week if this strike does not end.Today the government will seek leave tointervene in the Industrial Relations Com-mission in support of a return to work orderif the commission suspends or terminates thebargaining period. We will intervene in thisdispute because the 12,000 stood downworkers have a right to work. They shouldnot have their right to work taken away by apolitical strike engineered by an ultramilitantunion at a strategic company.

The positions of this government and theopposition are very clear. This governmentopposes the strike at Tristar; the oppositionsupports the strike at Tristar. But there aresome understandable reasons why that wouldbe the case. To start with, last year theAMWU, the union that has pulled on thisstrike, donated no less than $680,000 to theAustralian Labor Party. Not only that; a fewweeks ago Doug Cameron, the leader of thisstrike, promised a half a million dollar mar-ginal seats campaign in support of the Leaderof the Opposition. Not only that; the MetalWorkers Union has the largest or secondlargest block vote inside the Australian La-bor Party, and the Metal Workers Union’skey Victorian activist, the man who controlsthe largest block vote inside the Labor Partyin Victoria, is someone who believes that the


best way to talk to small business is to opentheir front door with a crowbar. Just for once,members opposite should put the nationalinterest ahead of the union interest. TheLeader of the Opposition should run his ownparty rather than let the unions do it for him,because there is one thing that the Australianpeople are starting to realise: if you are notallowed to govern your own party, youshould never be allowed to govern the coun-try.


Mr BEVIS (2.44 p.m.)—My question isaddressed to the Minister for Employment,Workplace Relations and Small Business.Minister, do you recall yesterday urging thatno compromise in the Tristar dispute shouldbe reached, saying ‘I think the only outcomeworth having is a backdown by the MetalWorkers Union.’ Isn’t it a fact that, in the last48 hours, both the employers and the unionsinvolved have made concessions in an at-tempt to reach a compromise that will re-solve the current dispute? Minister, if boththe employers and the unions are willing tocompromise, how can you justify your pro-vocative comments that have only inflamedthe situation? Didn’t your provocative standcause two other companies to withdraw theiroffers that would have secured their workers’legal entitlements?

Mr ABBOTT—Let us make it extremelyclear: this strike has been started by theMetal Workers Union. The government didnot start this strike. The company did notstart this strike. This strike has been startedby the Metal Workers Union. It is as simpleas that. The only party to this dispute that hascompletely refused to compromise is theMetal Workers Union. The Metal WorkersUnion has completely refused to compromiseon its absolute insistence on the so-calledManusafe scheme, even though theManusafe scheme is not a scheme to protectworker entitlements; it is not about protect-ing existing entitlements; it is about creatingnew entitlements. What is more, theManusafe scheme, if it were to come to frui-tion, would not just be about 1.5 per cent ofpayroll; it would be about 19 per cent of pay-roll. That is what it is about. The Manusafe

scheme is not at all about protecting workerentitlements; it is about confiscating theworking capital of the businesses of Austra-lia. It certainly will not be supported by thisgovernment, and it should not be supportedby members opposite.

Trade: Export PerformanceMr BAIRD (2.47 p.m.)—My question is

addressed to the Minister for Trade. GivenAustralia’s outstanding trade performance forthe month of June and for the past financialyear, would the minister inform the Housewhy Australian exporters have been so suc-cessful and what the government has done tohelp that performance?

Mr VAILE—I thank the honourablemember for Cook for his question. Obvi-ously, with his background of working inthis field, he takes a great deal of interest inhow Australia’s trade performance and ourexport performance have improved dramati-cally over the years. Mr Speaker, did youknow that the Australian waterfront is nowmore than 40 per cent more efficient than itwas when Keating, Beazley and Crean wererunning this country? That is an undeniablefact. More and more exporters are telling meas I travel around that that is one of thestructural changes that have taken place inthis country that have certainly enhancedtheir businesses and made them more effi-cient and much more competitive in the in-ternational marketplace.

Last week the figures for June and, in-deed, for the 2000-01 financial year werereleased. The trade surplus in June stood at$537 million—the fourth in the first half ofthis year. The trade surplus in the year2000-01 stands at $707 million, the first an-nual trade surplus since 1996-97. But moreinteresting than that is the fact that that istwo annual trade surpluses that we have pro-duced since coming into office in 1996. La-bor managed just one trade surplus in 13years in office; we have produced two inalmost six years. The one that Labor pro-duced in their 13 years in office was whenLabor mugged the economy with interestrates up around 20 per cent, drove consump-tion down and, of course, ‘allowed’ tradeexport to exist. At that time it was not aboutincreasing exports, it was not about making


the economy more efficient and it was notabout making our exporters more competi-tive in the international marketplace; it wasabout mugging the economy with high inter-est rates.

The question was: what has contributed tocreate this circumstance of a trade surplus? Ithas been increased exports. In the last finan-cial year, $153 billion worth of goods andservices were exported out of Australia. Ofcourse, fundamental to that and to the com-petitive nature of our export industries hasbeen workplace relations reform, particularlyon the waterfront. I was in Dubbo last weekin the electorate of the member for Parkes. Amember of the processing industry there in-dicated to me that, yes, the economic re-forms, the taxation reform, removing $3½billion off the back of exporters, have beenfantastic reforms for Australian exporters.But he said, ‘The thing that has made mybusiness much, much more competitive isthe fact that we changed the workplace rela-tions, particularly on the waterfront and inthe workplace.’

All those reforms at every inch of the wayhave been opposed by the Australian LaborParty. The Australian Labor Party have beenopposed to improving the structure of theAustralian economy; they have been opposedto taxation reform where we have removed$3½ billion worth of cost burden off the backof Australian exporters; and they have beenopposed to the reduction in the level of pub-lic sector indebtedness that has certainlyhelped improve the circumstance and hascertainly improved the interest rate regime inAustralia. So we have made a much morecompetitive environment, a much more effi-cient environment, within Australia so thatwe can compete better in the internationalmarketplace—and Australia’s exporters aretaking great advantage of that environment,which has been created by the coalition gov-ernment.


Mr BEVIS (2.51 p.m.)—Again my ques-tion is addressed to the Minister for Em-ployment, Workplace Relations and SmallBusiness. Minister, I refer to your commentsthat action taken by the workers at Tristar to

secure their legally accrued entitlements was‘treason’. Minister, if workers taking lawfulaction for a few days, in accordance withyour laws, to secure their legally accruedentitlements is treason, how would you de-scribe the actions by G & K O’Connormeatworks in Pakenham, Victoria, wholocked out their employees for nine monthsin an attempt to cut their wages by up to 17½per cent? Why is it that there was not oneword of criticism made by you, the PrimeMinister or any member of your governmentabout the actions of that employer in thatdispute? Isn’t this just another example ofthe government’s bias and double standards?

Mr ABBOTT—The fundamental differ-ence between the government and the oppo-sition on this is that the government supportsworkers’ rights and the opposition supportsunion rights. That is the fundamental differ-ence. We support the workers of this coun-try. Members opposite just support the un-ions of this country. Let me make it veryclear that the dispute at Tristar is not aboutlegally accrued entitlements; it is about cre-ating new entitlements. It is about puttingmoney into a fund—a union controlledfund—before that money has legally becomean entitlement of the workers in question.

Mr Bevis—Mr Speaker, I raise a point oforder. My question was actually comparingthe actions of the workers in Tristar with thatat G & K O’Connor. It was not about theentitlements scheme, which was the subjectof my earlier questions. The minister has gotthe opportunity now to say whether he sup-ports that nine-month lockout or not.

Mr SPEAKER—The Minister for Em-ployment, Workplace Relations and SmallBusiness was asked a question about a com-ment he had made relative to the Tristar dis-pute and its relevance to other disputes. Ideem him to be in order, and call him.

Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, as you say,the question was about actions going on atthe moment inside the motor industry. Letme make it very clear what the distinctionbetween this government and that oppositionis. While Labor’s mates, while the friends ofmembers opposite, are trying to drive a com-pany out of business and trying to drive anindustry to its knees, this government, this


Prime Minister, went to Japan to negotiatethe arrangement which will secure this in-dustry’s future. We are about the future of themotor industry in this country. They are juston about driving companies out of businessin support of their union mates.

Small Business: Workers’ EntitlementsMr McARTHUR (2.55 p.m.)—My ques-

tion is addressed to the Minister for SmallBusiness. Would the minister inform theHouse of the impact on small businesses ofthe proposed changes to the protection ofworkers’ entitlements?

Mr IAN MACFARLANE—I thank themember for Corangamite for his question. Ihave spoken to small businesses in theCorangamite electorate and I know from thatvisit that the member is a very staunch sup-porter of small business in those areas.Members of the House would be aware of aproposal by the Australian ManufacturingWorkers Union to impose a 1.5 per cent pay-roll levy on the manufacturers to allegedlyprotect workers’ entitlements. Outside theimmediate and damaging impact which theproposal will have on the automotive indus-try, the scheme has significant impact poten-tial on the 86,000 small businesses in manu-facturing in Australia. Ninety-three per centof businesses involved in manufacturing aresmall businesses, and the AMWU’s proposalwill impose a significant burden on thosesmall businesses by pinching their capitaland putting in place a scheme controlled bythe unions.

The Australian Industry Group indicatesthat it is estimated that the Manusafe schemecould cost up to 19.5 per cent extra for thewages bills of companies involved. A 19 percent increase in the wages bill will cost jobsand it will cost businesses. We know that thisscheme will only spread to other businessesand we know that Australian businesses haveplenty to fear from a Beazley led, uniondominated government because we knowthat in that scenario what the union wants iswhat the union gets.

We saw a situation the other day wherethe unions wanted an increase in the super-annuation guarantee. Firstly, the DeputyLeader of the Opposition said he supported

15 per cent. Then he said no, he did not.Then there was Senator Conroy—who hasthese fits of honesty—who said he was a 15per cent man. Lastly, we saw the oppositionleader finally admit that because the ACTUwants 15 per cent the Labor Party in gov-ernment will give workers a 15 per cent su-perannuation guarantee. Then the Leader ofthe Opposition wants to use the superannua-tion guarantee as a discretionary tool to fundhis ill-considered workers’ entitlementsscheme. Small business has a lot to fear froma Labor government. The shadow oppositionspokesman on employment admits that thiscurrent strike over Manusafe is hurting thecar industry but she still continues to supportthe union. Labor always puts the unions’interest ahead of that of Australia and aheadof that of small business.

Job Network: PlacementsMs KERNOT (2.58 p.m.)—My question

is to the Minister for Employment, Work-place Relations and Small Business. Minis-ter, I refer you to yesterday’s Age newspaper,which reported that your department hasasked the DPP to consider charges againstfive people working in the Job Network andthat three cases of fraud are currently beforethe courts. Minister, didn’t you already knowthis when the department said disingenu-ously in its report into Leonie Green:… in the course of the Enquiry various practicesused by Job Network members—

that is plural, members—have come to attention.

Minister, which Job Network providers dothe individuals referred to the DPP work for,which Job Network providers are currentlybefore the courts, and why didn’t you tell thefull truth in the report into Leonie Green andAssociates?

Mr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I riseon a point of order. I believe that the questioninfringes the sub judice principle and thenatural rights of those before the courts.

Ms Kernot interjecting—Mr SPEAKER—I remind the member

for Dickson that the question is being ad-dressed to the Speaker.


Mr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I be-lieve that the question offends the sub judiceprinciple and the rights of those currentlybefore the courts.

Mr SPEAKER—The member for Par-ramatta will have noted that I hesitated torecognise the minister because there is somevalidity in his point of order. However, it willbe the answer that needs to be monitored, notthe question.

Mr ABBOTT—I make two points here.First of all, it is the government’s view that ifanyone has broken the law, appropriate ac-tion should be taken against them. That isour view; it always will be our view. That isthe first point. The second point that I makeis that, notwithstanding this action, the gov-ernment totally supports the Job Network. Itis a great scheme, and the people behind itare some of the greatest institutions in ourcountry. Unlike the government, which sup-ports the Job Network, Labor wants to closeit down and it snipes at the Job Network atevery opportunity.

Mr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a pointof order. It was an explicit set of questions toascertain who it was who was under investi-gation—

Mr SPEAKER—I have been informedthat the minister has concluded his answer.Education: Funding for Non-Government

SchoolsMr NAIRN (3.02 p.m.)—My question is

addressed to the Minister for Education,Training and Youth Affairs.

Mr McMullan interjecting—Mr SPEAKER—I remind the Manager of

Opposition Business of standing order 55.Mr NAIRN—Will the minister inform the

House of the entitlement to Commonwealthfunding of Lumen Christi Catholic Collegeat Pambula Beach in my electorate of Eden-Monaro? Is the minister aware of any par-ticular threats to that funding?

Dr KEMP—I thank the honourablemember for Eden-Monaro for his question.

Mr Albanese interjecting—Mr SPEAKER—The member for

Grayndler! The minister has the call.

Dr KEMP—I know that the member forEden-Monaro has a very great interest in thatschool. In fact, he visited it recently and pre-sented a new Australian flag there. Doubt-less, while he was there, the school wouldhave expressed its concern over its entitle-ment to establishment grants. The Octoberentitlement of the school, of some $17,750 inestablishment grants, has now been put atrisk by the actions of the Labor Party in theSenate. Lumen Christi Catholic College isone of 54 new schools, generally low-feeschools, whose budgets have been flung intouncertainty by the actions of the AustralianLabor Party. It is one of 54 schools, includ-ing the Bentleigh Chabad Jewish DaySchool, the Nykina Mangala IndigenousCommunity School and the Coast ChristianSchool, to which the government has an ob-ligation to pay establishment grants in Octo-ber. Unfortunately, the government will notbe in a position to make these payments ofestablishment grants to these schools becausethe Labor Party voted down in the Senate thelegislation which provides the resources forthese schools. The Labor Party split the leg-islation in the Senate. It knows that once theSenate splits legislation from the House ofRepresentatives, that legislation is dead; itnever returns to the House of Representa-tives.

None of those schools will be paid unlessthe Labor Party backs down in its attitude tothat legislation. What the Labor Party is nowabout is attacking schools across the breadthof the non-government sector. It claims thatit wants to reduce funding for wealthyschools. In fact, as we know, it is going tocut the funding for some 30 boarding schoolsthat are important to remote and rural Aus-tralia. But now it is attacking the funding forlow-fee, new schools right across this coun-try. Every one of the two million parents ofstudents at non-government schools will nowbe in doubt about whether their school willreceive cuts in funding under the LaborParty. We know the Labor Party’s policy onnew schools is just part of its capitulation tothe policy of the Australian Education Un-ion. The Australian Education Union—letme be quite clear about it—said in its sub-mission to the Senate last year that the AEUhas long opposed any funding to private


schools and will continue to do so. As re-cently as 26 July, Mike Pope, the AEU Tas-manian President, said:The federal government must redistribute themoney that is currently going to private schoolsinto the public sector.

So the whole $9 billion that is going to bepaid to the Catholic parish schools over thenext four years is now under attack by theAustralian Labor Party. The Labor Party hasmade it clear—

Mr Lee interjecting—Mr SPEAKER—The member for Do-

bell! The minister has the call.Dr KEMP—The Labor Party has made it

clear that it is going to rewrite the formulafor non-government school funding for thenext quadrennium. It has made it quite clearthat it is going to reintroduce a new versionof its infamous new schools policy, whichleft many students at low-fee schools un-funded. We know it is going to cut funding to30 boarding schools, and now in the Senate itis attacking establishment grants to new low-fee schools. This is all because it is seekingto compromise with the extreme policy ofthe Australian Education Union. It is not aparty concerned with educational equity andjustice in this country. It is threatening thefunding to the whole of the non-governmentsector by its attitudes, and two million par-ents are now being left in doubt. The LaborParty is desperate for money. It is going toput up taxes, it is going to put up incometaxes, and now we know it is going to slicemoney away from low-fee non-governmentschools.

Job Network: PlacementsMs KERNOT (3.08 p.m.)—My question

is to the Minister for Employment, Work-place Relations and Small Business. Minis-ter, are you aware that in a recent speech tothe NESA conference, your junior ministeridentified changes to the Job Network to dealwith the dishonest practices of job splittingand serial placements? Minister, given thatyou—excuse me, Prime Minister—presidedover the creation—

Government members interjecting—

Ms KERNOT—This is a question to thisminister because he was in charge of JobNetwork 2.

Government members interjecting—Mr SPEAKER—Order! The member for

Dickson has the call and will address thequestion to the minister.

Ms KERNOT—Minister, as you presidedover the creation of Job Network 2, why didyou allow the continuation of a fee structurethat encourages short-term churning of theunemployed into job splitting and serialplacements simply to inflate outcomes?Don’t you share the responsibility for theseidentified rorts?

Mr ABBOTT—The essence of the JobNetwork is that we, the government, do notpay under the Job Network for process; wepay for performance. We pay for people whoare placed into jobs.

Ms Kernot interjecting—Mr SPEAKER—Order! The member for

Dickson.Mr ABBOTT—That is the way the Job

Network operates and that is the way itshould be. If there are any allegations of dis-honesty or inappropriate behaviour, let thembe made and they will be investigated, as theallegations in question relating to a Job Net-work member in Queensland have been in-vestigated and dealt with.

The fundamental point is this: this gov-ernment supports the Job Network. It be-lieves that the Job Network is doing a muchbetter job than the old CES and it is provid-ing much better value for taxpayers. Whatmembers opposite want to do is strip the JobNetwork contracts away from organisationslike the Salvation Army, Mission Employ-ment and Centacare. That is what membersopposite want to do. They want to destroythe operations of these great companies andgo back to a Canberra knows best centralisedbureaucracy. It is just not on. It shouldn’thappen and this government will never sup-port that kind of betrayal of the jobseekers ofAustralia, and betrayal of the great organisa-tions that are doing their best to help.

Ms Kernot interjecting—


Mr SPEAKER—Order! The member forDickson is warned.

Education: Literacy and NumeracyMrs DE-ANNE KELLY (3.10 p.m.)—My

question is addressed to the Minister forEducation, Training and Youth Affairs.Would the minister inform the House of theprogress being made in raising literacy andnumeracy standards among Australia’sschoolchildren? Is the minister aware of anythreats to the national literacy strategy?

Dr KEMP—I thank the honourablemember for Dawson for her question. Whenthis government was elected after 13 years ofLabor, around 30 per cent of young Austra-lians could not read or write properly, and,when Kim Beazley was the education min-ister, he did nothing about this. As he said, ‘Ifelt that there was less capacity to achieve inthis portfolio than in any other.’

Mr Griffin interjecting—

Mr SPEAKER—Order! The member forBruce is warned.

Dr KEMP—That was his view about a 30per cent illiteracy rate amongst young Aus-tralians. One of the first actions of this gov-ernment was to put in place a national liter-acy and numeracy strategy which requiresevery child in years 3, 5 and 7 to be testedagainst nationally agreed benchmark stan-dards, and that the states report publicly toparents. The Commonwealth now requiresthe states, in return for Commonwealthfunding, to commit to achieve literacy andnumeracy for every child. The legislationrecognises, of course, that there will be avery small number of students who will notachieve this.

At the ministerial council meeting lastFriday week, the state Labor governmentsattempted to roll back the literacy and nu-meracy strategy. They made it very clear thatthey want to repeal the Commonwealth leg-islation which underpins the right of everyyoung Australian to learn to read and write,to acquire basic literacy and numeracy skills.The Labor states also voted to reject theCommonwealth proposal that they tell par-ents what their child’s performance wasagainst national literacy benchmarks. They

refuse to reveal to parents the performance oftheir child against the national benchmarks.In other words, they refuse to tell parentswhether their children can read and write atnational standard levels.

This is not entirely a surprise from the La-bor state governments because the Bracksgovernment in Victoria has backed awayfrom its national commitments on literacyand numeracy; the New South Wales stategovernment has no state target at all for liter-acy and numeracy; and the Leader of theOpposition has never once criticised any ofthe unions boycotting literacy and numeracytests in the states. He never utters a wordwhen thousands of students are disadvan-taged and their parents are deprived of vitalinformation.

Since this government was elected, thenumber of Australian students not achievingthe national benchmark level has halved.Year 5 data released in the week before lastshows a similar trend. Year 5 reading resultsshow that 85.6 per cent of students nationallyachieved the agreed minimum national stan-dard. This shows that our strategy is work-ing. The Labor Party is under enormouspressure from the teacher unions to roll backthe national strategy. The states are now at-tempting to do that and they are going to putpressure on the Leader of the Opposition togo along with them. What Australian parentsnow want to hear is whether Kim Beazley isgoing to commit himself to the Common-wealth legislation which requires the states toteach every young person to read and writeproperly.

HomelessnessMr SWAN (3.14 p.m.)—My question is

addressed to the Minister for Employment,Workplace Relations and Small Business.Minister, do you support the statement in thereport of the government’s Advisory Com-mittee on Homelessness which says:Myths that link homelessness to personal flaws orbad choices must be dispelled. Homelessness iscaused by structural factors such as ... poverty andunemployment.

Minister, if you agree with the committeethat government policies rather than individ-ual failings cause homelessness, what is yourresponse to the committee’s view that a lot


more could be done to improve employmentoutcomes for people experiencing homeless-ness?

Mr ABBOTT—I certainly accept thatstructural factors can cause homelessness.There is no doubt about that. But there arealso other factors that can cause homeless-ness. This government is trying to maximisethe opportunities that people have to makethe most of their lives. It is about buildingfreedom and opportunities. It is certainly notabout trying to enmesh people in suffocatingbureaucracy, which is typical of membersopposite. The best thing you can do for al-most anyone who is suffering deprivation isprovide them with a job. The most compas-sionate thing that you can do for anyone whois suffering deprivation is to provide thatperson with employment, and I am delightedto say that this government has created800,000 new jobs since 1996.

Not only that, we have boosted the wagesof low paid workers. Basic award earningshave gone up by nine per cent over the lastfive years after declining in real terms byfive per cent when members opposite were ingovernment. Average award earnings havegone up by over 10 per cent under this gov-ernment. In fact, they declined by nearly 15per cent in real terms when members oppo-site were in government. So this governmenthave done a magnificent job. We are not per-fect and there is always more that can bedone. But this government have put in placethe foundations which will enable the under-privileged people of this country to makemore of their opportunities and we have putin place the kinds of services that they needto make the most of their lives.

Defence: White PaperMr LINDSAY (3.17 p.m.)—My question

is addressed to the Minister for Defence.Minister, what progress has the governmentmade in implementing the Defence whitepaper? What alternative policies exist tojeopardise its continuing successful imple-mentation?

Mr REITH—I thank the member forHerbert for his question. He is a great sup-porter of defence and we have a lot of mem-bers on this side who know the importance of

defence and are very keen to see it do well inthe future. I am asked what the governmentare doing to support defence. We are imple-menting the best plan that defence has had inprobably 30 or 40 years. We have given todefence a vision and a set of guidelines andreal support of the sort which it never hadwhen the Labor Party was in office.

I am also asked whether there is a threat tothis. There certainly is a threat to the De-fence white paper, and that threat sits acrossthe chamber, on the front bench at the bartable—the former Minister for Defence, oneof the worst defence ministers Australia hasever had. One only has to mention theCollins class submarines to any audience formost Australians to know that.

The Leader of the Opposition has a prom-ise for every audience he meets. He goes toAdelaide and he promises two free newsubmarines—Kim 1 and Kim 2—which hewill launch if ever he gets in. His shadowminister promises a new boat just at a clickof his fingers—$80 million. The Labor Partyin Newcastle have got the free bombingrange at a mere cost of $1 billion to $2 bil-lion, supported by the Leader of the Opposi-tion. They have got the Anzac battalion—half a billion dollars—and then, just for goodmeasure, he is around Australia promising acoastguard which, when he was the minister,he was totally opposed to because he said itwould not work and it would gut the Navy.

Then floating onto my desk comes anotherexample of the incoherent incompetence ofthe Leader of the Opposition. This was abrief discussion by him on Townsville radio.He says:We want to ensure that the government gets thebalance right.

It is great him giving us advice. And then hegoes on that they may be proceeding on theequipment at the expense of members of thearmed forces. I thought that he was nowpromoting the idea that we are spending toomuch money on equipment and not enoughmoney on personnel. So I kept readingthrough the transcript and I found that it isnot actually that—he wants to spend moremoney on equipment. We know that, becausehe has a list as long as your arm—the biggestblank cheque you have ever seen.


As the Prime Minister has said, all roadslead back to a certain proposition. OnTownsville radio last month Mr Beazley saidthat he was now not talking about cutting thedefence budget at all: the Labor Party wasgoing to increase it. So now we have fromthe Labor Party the biggest surplus, the big-gest spending, the promise to the states, noo-dle nation, and it is going to spend moremoney on defence. And, of course, he says,‘You will be told what we are going to spendit on after the election.’

Senator Conroy gave us a glimpse. Whenyou put all of these bits of the puzzle to-gether, they add up to one extra thing: therewill be nothing for defence. People in de-fence will pay more income tax. That is whatthey ought to be worried about.

Mr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that fur-ther questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

PERSONAL EXPLANATIONSMr BEAZLEY (Brand—Leader of the

Opposition) (3.21 p.m.)—Mr Speaker, I wishto make a personal explanation.

Mr SPEAKER—Does the honourablemember claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr BEAZLEY—Yes, on about five sepa-rate occasions in question time.

Mr SPEAKER—Please proceed.Mr BEAZLEY—Firstly, the Minister for

Small Business purported to quote me whenhe said that I had suggested that the superan-nuation guarantee charge should be increasedto 15 per cent, and that that was my intentionshould I be Prime Minister. I do not knowwhere he gets this from. It is rubbish. I havesaid no such thing.

Secondly, on several different occasionsthe Prime Minister and the Treasurer saidthat I intend to raise income taxes. I havenever said any such thing, nor did the quotesthey used indicate that I had said such athing. It is not our intention and, indeed, wehave given undertakings that we will notraise income taxes.

Mr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Op-position knows that he must indicate wherehe has been misrepresented, not enter intoargument.

Mr BEAZLEY—Thirdly, the Minister forEducation, Training and Youth Affairs hassaid—and he has several offences here—thatI am threatening the funds to Catholicschools and to low income private schools.We are not; we support the grants that go tothose schools. We invented the system.

Mr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Op-position must indicate where he has beenmisrepresented, not where the party has beenmisrepresented.

Mr BEAZLEY—He said that it was me.Mr SPEAKER—I interrupted the Leader

of the Opposition only because he had madefrequent reference to the term ‘we’, unless hethought I was in some way curtailing hisrights.

Mr BEAZLEY—Fine. Fourthly, theminister for education also said that we havenever supported skills testing. We have.

Mr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Op-position must refer to where he has been mis-represented, not where the party had beenmisrepresented.

Mr BEAZLEY—I have, as well. I do notknow where he is going with that particularproposition. I do support skills testing. Fi-nally, the Minister for Defence, the man whohas deserted his post—

Mr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Op-position knows that he must come to the mis-representation or resume his seat.

Mr BEAZLEY—He said that I would in-crease defence spending, and then he left it atthat. That is a partial quote which misleads.If you decide to create a coastguard, all ex-penditures associated with it, according tothe International Institute of Strategic Stud-ies—

Mr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Op-position has indicated where he has beenmisrepresented; he cannot get into an argu-ment about that misrepresentation. TheLeader of the Opposition will resume hisseat.

Mr CREAN (Hotham) (3.24 p.m.)—MrSpeaker, I wish to make a personal explana-tion.


Mr SPEAKER—Does the Deputy Leaderof the Opposition claim to have been misrep-resented?

Mr CREAN—I do.Mr SPEAKER—Please proceed.Mr CREAN—The Minister for Small

Business today in question time claimed thatI said that we would introduce a 15 per centsuper guarantee levy, presumably referring toa report in the Australian newspaper. That istotally incorrect. The Australian newspaperadmitted that that report was completelywithout foundation and printed a correction.

QUESTIONS TO MR SPEAKERQuestions on Notice

Mr MURPHY (3.24 p.m.)—In today’sNotice Paper question No. 2815, whichwould do justice to a Monty Python typescenario—

Mr SPEAKER—The member for Lowewill come to the point. He is rising understanding order 150, I presume?

Mr MURPHY—Yes. It asks the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care when will he an-swer—

Mr SPEAKER—The member for Lowemust only indicate which question is out-standing, and I will draw the number of thatquestion to the minister’s attention.

Mr MURPHY—That question relates tomy question of 22 May that I put on the No-tice Paper, question No. 2546 to the Ministerfor Health and Aged Care, which asks whenhe will answer my question No. 2110—

Mr SPEAKER—The member for Lowewill not proceed to restate the question. I willfollow up the question that he has nominated.

Mr MURPHY—Mr Speaker, all thosequestions relate to questions that I asked lastyear of the indolent Minister for Health andAged Care, who is a serial offender—

Mr SPEAKER—The member for Lowewill resume his seat.

Questions on NoticeMr EMERSON (3.25 p.m.)—Mr Speaker,

under standing order 150, would you write tothe Treasurer for the sixth time asking him torespond to my question No. 1290 of 3 April

last year and assure him it is not a trickquestion.

Mr SPEAKER—I will follow up thematter raised as the standing orders provide.

ASSENT TO BILLSMr SPEAKER—I wish to inform the

House that on Friday, 29 June I met with HisExcellency the Governor-General at Gov-ernment House and personally presented forthe royal assent the following bill:

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002

This is the first bill ready for presentationfollowing the swearing-in of His Excellency.His Excellency, in the name of Her Majesty,was pleased to assent to the bill, which isnow act No. 64 of 2001.

PETITIONSThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged

for presentation as follows and copies will bereferred to the appropriate ministers:

Australian Broadcasting CorporationTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Membersof the House of Representatives assembled in theParliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia drawsthe attention of the House to:(1) our strong support for our independent na-tional public broadcaster, the Australian Broad-casting Corporation;(2) the sustained political and financial pres-sures that the Howard Government has placed onthe Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC),including:(a) the 1996 and 1997 Budget cuts which re-duced funding to the ABC by $66 million peryear; and(b) its failure to fund the ABC’s transition todigital broadcasting;(3) our concern about recent decisions made bythe ABC Board and senior management, includ-ing the Managing Director Jonathan Shier, whichwe believe may undermine the independence andhigh standards of the ABC including:(a) the cut to funding for News and CurrentAffairs;(b) the reduction of the ABC’s in-house pro-duction capacity;(c) the closure of the ABC TV Science Unit;(d) the circumstances in which the decision wasmade not to renew the contract of Media Watchpresenter Mr Paul Barry; and


(e) consideration of the Bales Report, whichrecommended the extension of the ABC’s com-mercial activities in ways that may be inconsistentwith the ABC Act and the Charter;Your petitioners ask the House to:(1) protect the independence of the ABC;(2) ensure that the ABC receives adequatefunding;(3) call upon the Government to rule out itssupport for the privatisation of any part of theABC, particularly JJJ, ABC On-line and the ABCShops; and(4) call upon the ABC Board and senior man-agement to:(a) fully consult with the people of Australiaabout the future of our ABC;(b) address the crisis in confidence felt by bothstaff and the general community; andnot approve any commercial activities inconsis-tent with the ABC Act and Charter.

by Ms Corcoran (from 43 citizens) andby Mr Allan Morris (from six citizens).

Asylum Seekers: Work RightsTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members ofthe House of Representatives in Parliament as-sembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Dioceseof Melbourne carried without dissent the follow-ing Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government’s adop-tion of procedures for certain people seeking po-litical asylum in Australia which exclude themfrom all public income support while withholdingpermission to work, thereby creating a group ofbeggars dependent on the Churches and charitiesfor food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to reviewsuch procedures immediately and remove allpractices which are manifestly inhumane and insome cases in contravention of our national obli-gations as a signatory of the UN Covenant onCivil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Mem-bers of the Church of Christ, Surrey Hills, Victo-ria 3127, petition the House of Representatives insupport of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.

by Mr Georgiou (from 12 citizens).Asylum Seekers: Work Rights

To the President and the Members of the Senatein Parliament assembled:

Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Dio-cese of Melbourne carried without dissent thefollowing Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government’s adop-tion of procedures for certain people seeking po-litical asylum in Australia which exclude themfrom all public income support while withholdingpermission to work, thereby creating a group ofbeggars dependent on the Churches and charitiesfor food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to reviewsuch procedures immediately and remove allpractices which are manifestly inhumane and insome cases in contravention of our national obli-gations as a signatory of the UN Covenant onCivil and Political Rights.We therefore, the individual, undersigned Mem-bers of St Matthew’s Anglican Church, GeelongEast, Victoria 3219, petition the House of Repre-sentatives in support of the abovementioned Mo-tion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.

by Mr O’Connor (from 22 citizens).Israel: Occupation of Palestinian and

Arab TerritoriesTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members ofthe House of Representatives assembled in Par-liament:The petition of residents of the state of NewSouth Wales draws to the attention of the House,Israel’s continued occupation of the 1967 Pales-tinian and Arab territories in violation of UN Se-curity Council resolutions 242 and 338, Israel’scontinued refusal to allow the dispossessed Pal-estinian refugees to return to their homeland andpay compensation in accordance with UN Gen-eral Assembly resolution 194, as well as Israel’scollective punishments, daily killing of innocentcivilians for the last eight months, its economicand military siege of the Palestinian people in theoccupied territories, its confiscation of Palestinianland and the building of Jewish settlements, all ofwhich are war crimes and crimes against human-ity and contravene international law, UN resolu-tions, the Fourth Geneva Convention and theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:. demand that Israel comply, in full, with thepeace process agreements it signed with the PLO,withdraw from the occupied Palestinian and Arabterritories in accordance with UN resolution 242and 338, recognise the legitimate rights of thePalestinian people, including their right of returnto their homeland in accordance with UN resolu-tion 194 and the establishment of their independ-


ent Palestinian state, and exert every pressure onIsrael to do so.. adopt measures that would help to ensure Is-rael’s compliance with the 4th Geneva Conven-tion, as a High Contracting Party to the Conven-tion. Australia has a contractual obligation underArticle 1 of all four Geneva Conventions to do so.. condemn Israel’s crimes and expansion ofJewish settlements in the 1967-occupied Pales-tinian territories and exercise pressure towardsthose ends.. cancel the tax-exempt status of all fund-raisingappeals in Australia for Israel and in particular thediscriminatory Jewish National Fund of AustraliaInc., until such time as Israel revokes its racistlaws against its non-Jewish citizens, withdrawsfrom the occupied Palestinian and Arab territoriesand recognises the rights of Palestinian people.. increase the financial assistance to the Pales-tinian people.

by Mr Ross Cameron (from 1,064 citi-zens).

Defence: Chicquita ReserveTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members ofthe House of Representatives assembled in Par-liament:This petition of certain electors of the Division ofIsaacs draws to the attention of the House theintention of the Department of Defence to sell theland in Levanto Street Mentone known as Chic-quita Reserve, and used for the last 25 years aspublic open space, for residential subdivision.Your petitioners request that the House:suspend the proposed sale of the Chicquita Re-serve pending negotiations with a view to findingsome means to save the Reserve for residents’passive recreation and scouting activities and forits environmental value;consult with representatives of relevant state andlocal governments and with concerned residentsin an effort to work out appropriate funding ar-rangements and sources, which might include theNational Heritage Trust and Conservation Trustfor Nature, to purchase the Reserve if necessary.

by Ms Corcoran (from 481 citizens).Telstra: Call Zones and Charges

To the Honourable the Speaker and the Membersof the House of Representatives assembled in theParliament:The petition of certain electors in the Division ofIsaacs draws to the attention of the House to:. the severe costs to Cranbourne district resi-dents of STD charges on calls to most of Mel-

bourne, when Cranbourne is clearly part of theMelbourne metropolitan area;. the unfairness of Telstra’s current call zonesand charges being based on the 1960s telephonenetwork and demography of Melbourne, withdramatic changes in technology and Melbourne’sgrowth patterns over the subsequent three decadesbeing ignored;. the inequity of call zone arrangements inwhich Telstra discriminates against some citizens(Cranbourne residents) by denying local call ac-cess to most of metropolitan Melbourne, whencitizens more distant from Melbourne have suchaccess, based merely on historical chance.Your petitioners ask the House to: (1) require Telstra under its Universal ServiceObligations to develop equitable policies andcriteria to ensure it does not discriminate amongstcustomers in similar geographic circumstances;(2) ensure that Telstra establishes fair and eq-uitable call zones and charging systems for cus-tomers in similar geographic situations in theMelbourne metropolitan area.

by Ms Corcoran (from 408 citizens).Centrelink: South Melbourne Branch

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members ofthe House of Representatives assembled in Par-liament:This petition of residents of the City of PortPhillip draws to the attention of the House theFederal Government’s approval of Centrelink’sintention to close its South Melbourne branch on22/06/01, which provides customer service to17,500 people.We, the below signed petitioners, strongly believethat this branch is essential for the well being ofthe local community and recognise the difficultyand financial cost that thousands of elderly anddisadvantaged members of our community withlimited mobility would face in having to travel tothe Windsor branch of Centrelink.We also note the written assurances given by theMinister for Community Services, Mr Larry An-thony to the Federal Member for MelbournePorts, Mr Michael Danby MP, that the branch’scustomers ‘will continue to receive full customerservice from South Melbourne Centrelink, in-cluding emergency assistance when required.’Your petitioners therefore request the House toprovide residents of the City of Port Phillip with acontinued presence of an accessible Centrelinkoffice within the community.

by Mr Danby (from 767 citizens).


Insecticides: RebateTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members ofthe House of Representatives assembled in Par-liament:The petition of certain canegrowers from TheMulgrave Central Mill Co. Ltd area and employ-ees of The Mulgrave Central Mill Co. Ltd, Gor-donvale, points out to the House that this petitionis in support of a joint submission by The Mul-grave Central Mill Co. Ltd and the MulgraveCane Production & Productivity Board. The sub-mission details the extent of grub damage that hasaffected the Mulgrave Mill area to the detrimentof Canegrowers and the Mill by reducing produc-tivity and causing serious financial loss.Your petitioners therefore request the House tosupport a 33.3 per cent rebate off the price of theinsecticide Confidor for application to the 2002crop.

by Mr Entsch (from 347 citizens).Health: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members ofthe House of Representatives assembled in Par-liament.The undersigned citizens and residents of Austra-lia draw to the attention of the House, the lack ofa coherent public health policy and disabilityservices/provisions for persons impaired by My-algic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syn-drome/Fibromyalgia Syndrome and respectfullyrequest that the House legislate the following:1. Recognition that ME/CFS/FMS can be a se-verely disabling and even life threatening illness.2. Recognition that the ME/CFS/FMS impairedare genuinely disabled persons entitled to accessdisability support services/benefits.3. Establishment and maintenance of a compre-hensive national register of ME/CFS/FMS pa-tients, to enable statistical evaluation of theprevalence and outcomes in the community.4. Commitment of National Health and MedicalResearch Council funding for research into thephysical/organic aspects of ME/CFS/FMS.5. Regulation of Government and Private Insur-ance Sectors everyone ensure the fair and trans-parent assessment of ME/CFS/FMS disabilityclaims.

by Mr Georgiou (from 19 citizens).Telstra: Privatisation

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of theHouse of Representatives assembled in Parlia-ment.

These petitioners of the Division of Shortland andadjoining areas are deeply concerned at any plansto further privatise Telstra.Further privatisation of Telstra will result in theloss of thousands more Telstra jobs, worseningservices to regional and rural Australia, and theloss of up to $1 billion a year for all Australiansearned from Telstra profits.We believe these profits, both now and in thefuture, should be set aside to secure improvededucational opportunities for our children, in-creased research and development funds for ourscientists and doctors, and more money for ruraland regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore respectfully requestthat the House reject any further sale of theCommonwealth’s shares in Telstra and that theannual profits from Telstra be used for the benefitof all Australians.

by Ms Hall (from 15 citizens).Medicare: Bulk-Billing

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of theHouse of Representatives assembled in Parlia-ment.We the undersigned request that the Governmenttake action to preserve bulkbilling and tostrengthen the Medicare system.The cessation of bulkbilling by many generalpractitioners as a direct result of government pol-icy has caused great hardship to many local resi-dents on low incomes particularly the elderly andthose with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Repre-sentatives introduce legislation to ensure thatbulkbilling is preserved and that our Medicaresystem is strengthened.

by Ms Hall (from 22 citizens).Health: Diabetes

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members ofthe House of Representatives assembled in Par-liament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia drawsto the attention of the House the plan by theHoward Government to raise $10 million by in-creasing the amount paid by diabetes patients forblood glucose test strips, syringes, insulin penneedles and urine strips.The undersigned believe that this move wouldunfairly punish people, who as well as managingthis disease, would be faced with higher prices foressential diagnostic items.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request theHouse recognise the significant financial burden


this heartless budget measure would place onpeople with diabetes and reject the proposal.

by Dr Martin (from nine citizens).Sri Lanka: Ethnic Conflict

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of theHouse of Representatives assembled in Parlia-ment.We the citizens of Strathfield Municipal Councildraw to the attention of the House our concernover the ethnic conflict currently occurring in SriLanka.We ask the House to support negotiations tofinding a political solution to the current ethnicconflict through peaceful means—a negotiatedsettlement that is fair, just and equitable andwhich would satisfy the political aspirations ofthe Tamil people. In addition we request theHouse to forward this petition directly to thePresident of Sri Lanka.

by Mr Murphy (from 400 citizens). Schools Enrolment Benchmark

AdjustmentTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members ofthe House of Representatives assembled in Par-liament:The petition of certain residents of the electorateof Bradfield draws to the attention of the Housethe unfortunate situation whereby the generalgrants from Federal Government to the States canbe reduced, as a result of the Enrolment Bench-mark Adjustment using a proportional change inenrolments, even though the actual enrolmentnumbers in a public school system may have in-creased.Your petitioners therefore request that the Houseinstruct the Minister for Education, Training andYouth Affairs, the Federal Treasurer and theMinister for Finance to work together and find away of changing the method of calculating theamount to be deducted from State GovernmentGeneral Grants under the Enrolment BenchmarkAdjustment, from one using a proportionalchange in school enrolments to one using a percapita basis, so that when student numbers inpublic schools increase there is no reduction inthe General Grant.

by Dr Nelson (from 241 citizens).Refugees: Myanmar

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members ofthe House of Representatives in Parliament as-sembled:The petition of certain residents and/or citizens ofAustralia, draws the attention of the House to the

application of Khin Maung Tunn, a national ofMyanmar (Burma), currently residing at 2 Dill-wynnia Grove, Heathcote, New South Wales, forthe protection of the Commonwealth of Australiaas a political refugee.Khin Maung Tunn was an active member of theNational League for Democracy in Myanmar, andhas continued his political activities in Australiafor the promotion of the cause of democracy inMyanmar.In Myanmar, he suffered both imprisonment andprofessional disadvantage for his support ofdemocratic principles.Additionally, his family’s relationship, friendshipand support for the persecuted leader of thedemocratic movement in Myanmar, Daw AungSan Suu Kyi, have drawn the intimidating atten-tion of the military government in Myanmar.Consequently, it is our belief that Khin MaungTunn is in extreme and life threatening dangershould he be refused protection, and forced by theAustralian Government to return to Myanmar.Your petitioners therefore request the House to doall in its power to ensure that Khin Maung Tunnis provided with protection as a political refugeeand is allowed to reside in Australia permanently,or alternatively, that he be granted permanentresidency as an act of compassion on humanitar-ian grounds.

by Mr Sciacca (from 330 citizens).Nuclear Armed and Powered Vessels

To the Speaker and Members of the House ofRepresentatives assembled:We, the undersigned residents of Australia askthat the House of Representatives consider thehealth and welfare of the present and future resi-dents of this country and the environmental im-pacts of possible negative impacts relating to thevisits of nuclear powered and/armed vessels intoAustralian ports.Nuclear navies are not welcome here whateverthe colour of their flags.The recent spate of accidents involving nuclear-powered submarines should be enough to con-vince all governments that the risk to the envi-ronment of these floating Chernobyls is a risk wedon’t have to take.Accordingly, we respectfully request that the par-liament legislate to prevent all visits of nucleararmed/powered vessels to Australian ports andwaters.And your petitioners as in duty bound, will everhumbly pray.


by Mr Stephen Smith (from 317 citi-zens).

Families: Marriage BreakdownTo the Honourable the Speaker and members ofthe House of Representatives assembled in Par-liamentThe petition of certain citizens of Australia drawsthe attention of the House to the unfair and ineq-uitable gender biased administration of FamilyBreakdown Services, whereby Families in Break-down are provided services differently and une-qually according to the gender of the parent.These services are discriminatorily promoted andprovided as free services to mothers but unequallyor not at all to fathers, thus discriminating againstfathers and their children. This injustice is creat-ing unnecessarily exaggerated disruptions to fam-ily and children’s lives. Such services are (1)Domestic Violence Strategies targeting only fa-thers whilst ignoring Australian and world-widesocial science research, supported by other familyservice, crime and medical statistics that over-whelmingly reveals mothers are equally violentfamily members. (2) Family Crisis Centres thatdo not accommodate fathers with children whoare in similar circumstances as mothers with chil-dren that are accommodated, and (3) restrainingorders issued exparte against separating fathers asan administrative routine, without adequate in-vestigation or reason about the fathers behaviourever requiring such services. (4) Only fathers andtheir children are subjected to these administra-tive distortions and humiliation as in (1) (2) and(3) above.Your petitioners therefore pray that the Housewill henceforth have all aforementioned FamilyBreakdown Services administered, according toproper statistical facts to fathers as to motherswithout fear or favour of gender, and according totheir true family needs so as to avoid over serv-icing vexatious allegations.

by Mr Snowdon (from 134 citizens).Petitions received.

PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESSNursing Homes: Care Standards

Ms HALL (Shortland) (3.30 p.m.)—Imove:

That this House:(1) condemns the Government for failing to

ensure that residents in nursing homes receive anadequate standard of personal medical care;

(2) notes the concerns of the families ofnursing home residents and workers in the agedcare industry about the impact of the Govern-

ment’s aged care policy on nursing home stan-dards and care; and

(3) calls on the Government to review itsaged care policy to ensure that the wellbeing ofnursing homes is paramount and not secondary togovernment savings.

There is no greater challenge for governmenttoday than that of ensuring adequate care andaccommodation for Australians as they growolder. It is about people and ensuring thatolder people in our community who are frailand who need special care and accommoda-tion can receive the quality care they need. Itis about treating them with dignity, in theway that you would want your mother, fa-ther, husband, wife or even yourself to betreated. Aged care is about caring for peoplewho have made enormous contributions toour nation and who now depend on govern-ment to ensure that they receive the care theydeserve. Unfortunately, the Howard govern-ment has failed to ensure that older peoplereceive this care. The Prime Minister and theMinister for Aged Care have forgotten thatthey are talking about real people when theyblame everyone else but themselves for theaged care crisis. The government stands con-demned for its inaction, for placing nursinghome residents at risk, for failing to providesufficient nursing home and hospital beds forpeople who need them, for undermining theviability of many nursing homes because ofits flawed funding formula and for failing toplan to meet the future needs of older Aus-tralians.

In this House we have heard about thepoor medical attention that residents at Riv-erside and Yagoona nursing homes received.This government’s response was appalling.The minister was more interested in justify-ing her performance and passing the buckthan addressing the real issues. It is not goodenough, and it certainly does not equate to agovernment taking seriously its responsibil-ity to care—remember that word—for someof the most vulnerable people within oursociety. The government and the ministerhave argued that the accreditation processwould ensure that all residents of nursinghomes receive quality care, but this is not thecase. Most nursing homes pass the scheduledinspections but problems still continue innursing homes run by unscrupulous opera-


tors. The government’s commitment tomeaningful spot checks still has a questionmark over it.

Most areas throughout Australia are expe-riencing an enormous shortage of beds. Theminister has detailed the number of beds thatthe government has allocated to address thisshortage. But what the minister—or, for thatmatter, anyone in the Howard government—does not tell us is how many of these bedsare actually available. In the Hunter, the areaI come from, there are currently 89 phantomnursing home beds and 460 phantom hostelbeds, and on the Central Coast of New SouthWales there are 147 phantom nursing homebeds and 528 phantom hostel beds. This rep-resents one bed in 10 in the Hunter and onebed in five on the Central Coast that existonly on paper. And on the mid-North Coastthe figure is one bed in six.

I have very little sympathy for the gov-ernment’s argument that it has delivered allthese beds to the area I represent when everyday I have families telling me about theproblems they are having locating a bed fortheir mother, father, husband or wife. Thereare people like the lady from Swansea whomI saw last Thursday. Her mother is 89 yearsold and suffers from slight dementia, but sheis not a danger to herself or others, so she isnot a high priority. She is very frail and dis-abled. She has been assessed as needinghostel accommodation. She has been waitingfor six months and is also on the waiting listfor a community care package. Her daughtervisits every day and pays for her to get carein her home. Wouldn’t it be good if some ofthose 460 phantom hostel beds existed, be-cause then this lady would have somewhereto live?

Recently in the Hunter, Catholic aged careannounced that St Catherine’s of Siena atWaratah and St Joseph’s at Lochinvar willclose. The member for Hunter has just ex-pressed to me his great disappointment thatbeds are going from Lochinvar. These clo-sures are a direct result of the governmentfailing to adequately fund aged care facilitiesand, from what other aged care providers inmy area are telling me, they will not be thelast nursing homes to close their doors.Catholic aged care is a quality aged care pro-

vider. It places a high value on the care of itsresidents above all other aspects, so it is verysad when we see this organisation beingforced to close a quality nursing home, onethat has had $1.5 million invested in it inrecent times. The minister, as always, blamesthe closures on something else: the closureswere outside her control; St Joseph’s is toosmall; St Catherine’s is a heritage buildingand on three levels, which makes it expen-sive to operate. We hear excuse after excuse,but these excuses will not find nursing homebeds for the 88 residents who live at St Cath-erine’s, nor will they help all those people inthe Hunter and on the Central Coast who arewaiting for nursing home beds.

So what has caused this crisis? If we canbelieve the minister, we could be forgivenfor thinking that there is no crisis. She hastold the Australian people and the nursinghome industry that the funding for aged careis generous and that nursing homes should bemaking a 12 per cent profit. But, when thefunding is looked at in detail, the problembecomes obvious. I will use St Catherine’s ofSiena to illustrate the minister’s deception.The minister has stated that St Catherine’shas received a 54 per cent increase in fund-ing over the last five years. True, but whatthe minister is not saying is that this fundingincrease has been absorbed totally by 16 newbeds, which accounts for 31 per cent; in-creased insurance premiums of six per cent;increased superannuation contributions ofthree per cent; and award increases of 14 percent. This leaves no funding for increases inthe cost of food, electricity, maintenance,service contracts, medical supplies, linenservices, cleaning products, telephones andthe implementation of the GST. It is littlewonder that St Catherine’s of Siena has toclose its doors.

The government relies heavily on theGray report to justify its performance in theprovision of aged care. Unfortunately, whilstthis review was conducted by an eminentperson independent of government, it relieson government data and unreleased govern-ment modelling to support its key finding.There is no independent research, so howcredible and independent is this review of the


government’s reform program when it hasused the government’s data?

A report released by Aged and Commu-nity Services Australia on Friday for the Na-tional Aged Care Industry Council concludesthat the aged care industry is fast reachingcrisis point and that its ongoing viability isunder threat. That is a real problem for Aus-tralia. The report details the problems thatthat industry is having in gaining access tocapital to make necessary building improve-ments or to finance new beds. It also demon-strates the government’s failure to portraythe real costs of nursing homes by its state-ment that it costs only $68,500 to provide anursing home bed when, if all costs are takeninto account, it costs somewhere between$85,000 and $120,000. No wonder there is acrisis within the nursing home industry, andno wonder a question hangs over its ongoingviability. This, in turn, has led to the closureof facilities like St Catherine’s of Siena,those 549 phantom beds in the Hunter and675 phantom beds on the Central Coast—beds that exist on paper only.

There are many other issues that threatenthe viability of the nursing home industry—and which the government has failed to rec-ognise—such as the enormous cost of theaccreditation process and a number of staffrelated matters that also impact on the in-dustry’s ongoing viability. The governmenthas failed to recognise that aged care is aboutcare—care for vulnerable people who de-serve to be treated with respect and dignity.Aged care is not about passing the buck, it isnot about cutting costs and it is not aboutapportioning blame; it is about planning andensuring that the needs of our communitiesare met. I call on the government, and inparticular the minister, to sit down with allinterested parties and groups— (Time ex-pired)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Isthe motion seconded?

Ms O’Byrne—I second the motion andreserve my right to speak.

Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (3.40 p.m.)—Health and wellbeing of all Australians, inparticular the elderly, is a central concern ofthis government. In her closing remarks, the

member for Shortland said that the future ofaged care was about planning. Let me indi-cate to the House that it was the total andabject failure of planning by the previousLabor government that established the base-line for the situation that this governmentfaced when it came to office in 1996. Indeed,the government has significantly increasedthe number of aged care places available forolder Australians. After the governmentcame to office in 1996, the Auditor-General—an independent officer— foundthat a 10,000 aged care place deficit hadbeen left by the previous Labor government.In the last two approval rounds, and in the2001 approval round, more than 31,000 newplaces have been released to in part make upfor this deficit and to meet the need forgrowth.

A review was taken, again independently,by Professor Gregory. What he found aboutthe building fabric of the nursing homes inAustralia at the end of the Labor rule of thisCommonwealth parliament was that 13 percent of nursing homes did not meet the rele-vant fire authority standards, 11 per cent ofnursing homes did not meet the relevanthealth authority standards, 70 per cent ofnursing homes did not meet the relevant out-come standards and 51 per cent of nursinghome residents were living in rooms withthree or more beds. That was the legacy leftto this government by the previous govern-ment—the opposition of which the honour-able member is a member in this place. It isthat legacy that this government has beenattempting to address over the five years ithas been in government.

Indeed, Professor Len Gray, in the two-year review of aged care reforms, found thatthere had been improvements in buildingstandards since this government came to of-fice. Specifically he stated:Substantial increases in the quality and quantityof residential buildings was a specific objective ofthe reforms. The evidence indicates that consider-able progress has been made towards achievingthis objective.

Professor Gray also found that the new ar-rangements introduced by this governmentgenerated sufficient income to enable theindustry to meet its capital requirements, and


the system is now sustainable well into thefuture. Indeed, extensive rebuilding, up-grading and refurbishment work has beenundertaken. In the past two years, $1.4 bil-lion across Australia has been committed bythe industry to capital building works, and 12per cent of all aged care homes in Australiahave been either newly built or completelyrebuilt.

There has been a steady decline in thenumber of residents per room since October1996, when there were 1.6 residents perroom. This has fallen in 3½ years to 1.5 resi-dents per room. In 1994, Professor Gregoryfound that, under the Labor Party, some 51per cent of residents were living in roomswith three or more people. Now, fewer than22 per cent of residents are living in roomswith three or more beds, and this number issteadily declining.

In 1995-96, the former Labor governmentspent $2.5 billion on residential aged care.The outlay in the 2000-01 financial year isexpected to be $3.9 billion. If you look at theprojections into the future—and we are thefirst to admit that we have a lot further to go,that we came from a very poor base left to usby the Labor Party—you will see that therewill be an increase from some $4.2 billion to$6 billion in 2001-02, an increase of some 41per cent. So the moves and the measurestaken by the government have been substan-tial.

Referring to the Hunter region, which thehonourable member represents, the totalnumber of new operational beds commencedor scheduled to commence by 31 Decemberthis year is 461; the total number of newaged care homes commenced or scheduled tocommence by the end of this year in theHunter region is five, which will account foran additional 163 residential aged careplaces; and seven extensions to existing agedcare homes have commenced or are sched-uled to commence by the end of this year,which involves an extra 298 residential agedcare places. So in the Hunter region alone,which the honourable speaks about in part ofher remarks, there is an expected increase inactual beds in aged care facilities on theground of some 461 beds. In my own elec-torate there have been numerous new nursing

homes and aged care facilities that have beenbuilt and there are many hundreds of newbeds. I am sure that members, if they arefrank about the matter, can speak about thatright throughout this area.

The other issue that the honourable mem-ber failed to mention when talking about thesituation in the Hunter was the high and in-creasing workers compensation costs which,in effect, have been imposed by the Laborgovernment in New South Wales. One wouldhave thought that, if she were truly making afair representation of the situation, she wouldhave admitted to those high and increasingworkers compensation costs in the state ofNew South Wales and would be calling uponthe Labor government in New South Walesto do its part in relation to these matters.

Certification in this area has provided thefirst ever audit of the building quality of allaged care homes. We hear about problemsthat arise from time to time with certain agedcare facilities in this country. But we have abetter situation now—not that any of us wantproblems to arise—where there is certifica-tion, monitoring and checks and we can havesome assurance of the quality in these nurs-ing homes. The situation that prevailed priorto this government—when the party of thehonourable member opposite was in gov-ernment; when it was occupying this side ofthe House—was that we did not have thosechecks, we did not have that system of ac-creditation, we did not have that monitoringand we did not know what the standard wasin relation to many of these homes.

The accreditation agency and the depart-ment have the power to visit aged carehomes and conduct spot checks. In fact,more than 643 spot checks have occurred sofar this calendar year. As at 1 June 2001, atotal of 1,320 spot checks had been con-ducted and some 3,000 accreditation sitesaudited. Professor Gray’s overall conclusionwas that reforms have resulted in substantialimprovements to the aged care system. Hisassessment of this government’s perform-ance was clearly a distinction. He said:It is my conclusion, on completion of the Review,that the reforms have delivered substantial im-provements to the aged care system. The fine-tuning undertaken to smooth the implementation


of the reforms and address unanticipated anoma-lies has been largely successful.

That is all part of a situation in the context ofthe budgeting ability of this government. Aswas pointed out in question time today, whenwe came to office there was not only a defi-cit in the Commonwealth budget, in terms ofthe 1995-96 budget when we came to power,but also a $96 billion Commonwealth debt,$80 billion of which—or most of it—hadbeen run up while the current Leader of theOpposition, Mr Beazley, was the Minister forFinance in the Hawke and Keating govern-ments.

We did not start from a level playing field,and we will have paid back by the end of thisfinancial year something like $60 billion.That is important because that frees up inter-est which is now available to provide forhealth care, aged care homes, education, po-lice forces and all the social services that thepeople in Australia want. But I do not hearanything from the honourable member interms of the base of income in this place. Sheis part of a party that says, ‘We’ll roll backthe GST. We’ll roll back the revenue andsomehow, magically, we are going to findmore money for aged care facilities, amongstother things.’

We have a growing and ageing popula-tion. In 1998, 2.3 million Australians wereover 65 years—12 per cent of the population.That is estimated to be five million by2030—something like 19 per cent of thepopulation. This government recognise thatthere is more to be done in this area. But Iwould say to the people of Australia that,having recognised the problem, having rec-ognised the legacy, having recognised theinadequate system that the Labor Party leftus in 1996, we have made substantial im-provements which have enabled us to pro-vide thousands of more places and to putbillions of more dollars into aged care. Wehave more to do and we will go further. Thismotion does not recognise that at all. We willbuild upon those results.

Ms O’BYRNE (Bass) (3.50 p.m.)—I riseto support the motion moved by my friendand colleague the member for Shortland andjoin with her in calling for this House tocondemn the government for its failure to

provide a safe aged care framework for olderAustralians. I would like to speak aboutsome of the comments made by the memberfor Menzies. He said that aged care was nowsustainable. I suppose he probably does notrealise the situation in Tasmania, where thecoalescence or funding equalisation—orwhatever the government chooses to call iton any given day—actually results in a less-ening of the funding to aged care facilities.Many facilities are now trying to decidewhether or not they can remain open. That isnot a sustainable industry, from my perspec-tive.

The member for Menzies also gave assur-ances with respect to aged care standards andtold us how we can believe in them. But timeand time again we hear horror storiesemerging from our nation’s aged care facili-ties. Many of these facilities are good pro-viders, particularly the ones in my region forwhich I have the utmost respect. They arestruggling to do the best that they can underimmense pressure from this government,which refuses to acknowledge the true stateof the aged care industry.

The fact that we have a far greater demandfor aged care than is currently availableshould not have come as a surprise to anygovernment. Australia, in common withother developed nations, is ageing. This phe-nomenon is predicted to continue well intothe next century. The member for Menziesreferred to the ABS projections, which indi-cated that, while the percentage of the popu-lation over 65 in 1997 was 12 per cent—andhe gave the figures for 2031—the figure willactually reach something like 25 per cent bythe time we get to 2051.

Tasmania is second only to South Austra-lia in having the highest proportion of citi-zens over the age of 65. In terms of futuregrowth rates, Australia is expected to experi-ence a higher than average increase in agedpopulation over the 1995-2005 period com-pared with the rest of the Western world.This is information we have known about forsome time, yet the government continues tostick its head in the sand when it comes tothe needs of our ageing population. These arepeople who have fought wars, raised fami-lies, contributed immeasurably to our society


and paid a lifetime of taxes, but still the gov-ernment continues to insult them through theincompetent and, I believe, uncaring Minis-ter for Aged Care.

Families who are faced with the prospectof having an elderly relative in a nursinghome must be able to feel confident that theirloved one is receiving the highest possiblelevel of care, that their wellbeing and dignityare respected, and that they have the samequality of life that the rest of us in the com-munity expect. With the current inadequacyof care subsidies, families cannot be sure thattheir relatives will receive even those basicstandards. I regularly speak with staff in theexcellent aged care facilities in my electoratewho are heartbroken because they simply donot have the time and the resources that theyneed to provide the level of care that they notonly want to provide but know they need toprovide.

I recently met with a group of aged careproviders, and in one short meeting theyraised over 13 issues which were of extremeconcern. They included a long list of con-cerns about the accreditation system, heavyworkloads, impossibility of paperwork,documentation driving funding, wage parity,and lack of recognition of nurses’ skills. Oneissue that really concerned those at themeeting was the acuity of residents. Resi-dents can come into a nursing home with anacuity comparable with that of patients in amedical ward of a hospital. What is of criti-cal concern is that these facilities will some-times have a ratio of one registered nurse tosome 90 residents in his or her care. This isan outrageous situation and not what any ofus would expect for someone we care about.

Waiting lists are an issue that is oftenbrought up in my electorate, and I share theconcerns of the member for Shortland. Itseems that practically everyone I speak withhas a relative or knows of someone on awaiting list for an aged care bed. In 1997-98,12 per cent of people waiting for high carebeds in northern Tasmania waited over threemonths for that bed. This year, that figurehas blown out to 25 per cent. One quarter ofthe people waiting for essential care servicesare waiting for over three months. Despitethis, northern Tasmania was not granted a

single extra high care bed in the 2000-01allocation round. That means that frail, eld-erly Australians are waiting. They are wait-ing in hospital beds; they are waiting athome, unable to look after themselves; theyare waiting in inappropriate services and notreceiving the care they need to be safe andwell. They are just waiting. While the Min-ister for Aged Care wastes time blaming thestates for this terrible problem, frail Austra-lians will continue to wait. And it is just notgood enough.

At June 2000, the northern Tasmanianaged care planning region had a shortage of139 residential aged care beds, but in the2000-01 allocation round northern Tasmaniawas granted only an additional 94 low carebeds. These beds are not even going to comeon line until 2003-04.

I want to mention that the honourablemember for Dunkley will be speaking next inthis debate. I know that he is particularlyconcerned about phantom beds in his elec-torate, with Lestlin Nominees, a Queenslandcompany, having received an allocation of140 beds in 1999, and yet not one of thosebeds is operational. I believe that the memberfor Dunkley has even undertaken a search fora location where an aged care facility couldfinally be constructed. It appears that themember for Dunkley appreciates the unac-ceptable impact of the current Liberal gov-ernment’s aged care policies, and I hope hesupports this motion.

Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (3.55 p.m.)—That was a wonderful, kind introductionfrom the member for Bass, and I thank herfor drawing attention to my assiduous andtireless work in representing myconstituency. The point that the member forBass missed, and the point that my colleaguehighlighted, is that when the coalitiongovernment were elected, the Auditor-General identified a 10,000 bed shortfall anda half billion dollar shortfall in capitalfunding left to us by the former Laborgovernment. The best the member for Basscan do is complain about the 30,000-plusbeds that we have brought onstream since wewere elected and the fact that thesemultimillion dollar facilities requireconsiderable work to have them availableand to a standard that provides for the dignity


dignity and the proper care of residents. Theyare not simply hospital beds, which is an-other point of confusion the member for Basshas identified. These are people’s homes. Ifsomeone is assessed as needing this sort ofaccommodation, there is an obligation on allof us to play a constructive role and makesure that that level of care is there.

I am glad the member for Bass highlightedthe work I am undertaking at a local level.We have been able to convince the variousstate and federal planning authorities thatthere is an urgent need for additional beds onthe Mornington Peninsula. Again, the mem-ber for Bass’s criticism is that we have actu-ally been successful in attracting more than400 new residential aged care beds to theMornington Peninsula region. These are sub-stantial facilities and, again, I thank themember for Bass for her kind praise and fordrawing people’s attention to the work I havebeen doing to assist with the early availabil-ity of those beds. There is a considerableneed for aged care beds, and that is why thegovernment has made more than 30,000 ad-ditional aged care beds available since it waselected—to make up for the 10,000 shortfallleft to it, plus the growing population that mycolleague Mr Andrews was speaking of ear-lier.

The good news—and this is somethingthat the member for Bass might not be awareof—is that, in the most recent allocation ofbeds, the region that I represent is gettingadditional beds, again recognising the needof a growing population and the fact that theMornington Peninsula is highly regarded as aretirement destination. People choose to re-tire in our area, and in some cases that re-tirement takes the form of residential agedcare. In addition, we have the RSL Park fa-cility in Frankston—and I am surprised themember for Bass did not talk about it, but Iwill come back to that in a moment.

We find in today’s Newcastle Herald whatthis is really all about. The federal memberfor Shortland, Jill Hall, is just chasing head-lines; nothing more than headlines. Wherehave the Labor Party been while we have hadhard work to do to clean up the mess leftbehind in the aged care sector from 13 yearsof neglect from the former Labor govern-

ment? They have been AWOL—absentwithout leadership. They had no idea how tofix the horrendous problem they left us with.The Gregory report, a report the former La-bor government commissioned, identified ahalf billion dollar shortfall in capital funding,and what did the Labor government do intheir final years? They cut capital funding by75 per cent. That shows the sincerity withwhich the Labor Party addresses these issues,and that is probably why we have two re-cently elected members of the Labor Partytalking about this subject: it is really helpfulto stand up and seem sincere when you havegot zero corporate knowledge about wherewe have come from. That is the only expla-nation that could be attributed to those earlierspeakers. They must have no idea of themess that was left to this government by theformer Labor government in the area of agedcare, and that is why they are here talking sosanctimoniously about aged care.

The member for Bass talks about the acutenature of the care needs of people going intonursing homes. This highlights another con-fusion in the Labor Party. If they need hos-pital care, Member for Bass, put them in ahospital. But again that highlights a problemthat the aged care community is facing assuccessive Labor state governments aroundthis country churn people through hospitals:as soon as there is half a chance to get themout of there, they whip them out and dumpthem on the aged care industry. The memberfor Bass should go and talk to providersfaced with having to accommodate peoplecoming out of hospital at such a rapid rateand who might need care for only a fewdays, when that is not the appropriate carethey need. You should jump to your feet andapologise for those disgraceful remarks youmade before.

Ms O’Byrne—I rise on a point of orderon relevance, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is notin any way reflecting the aged care crisis andthe people who need—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—There is no point of order. Resume your seat.

Mr BILLSON—The member for Basstries to not learn more about the aged careindustry by burning up the time that is avail-able to me. Let me again highlight another


point that the Labor Party have a problemwith: they run around the country saying thatthey are concerned about the quality of agedcare. But, when some action is taken to en-sure that the quality of aged care servicesavailable to residents is enforced, what dothey do? They run around saying, ‘Gee, thisis all too hard. How can you be so cruel?’They did that: the Labor Party did that inDunkley when the RSL war veterans parkwas identified as needing some additionalassistance. In Riverside, when its problemswere identified years ago, they did nothing.They are a hypocritical bunch. (Time ex-pired)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate hasexpired. The debate is adjourned and the re-sumption of the debate will be made an orderof the day for the next sitting.

Citrus IndustryMrs HULL (Riverina) (4.01 p.m.)—I

move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the financial difficulties

being experienced by certain sectors of the citrusindustry;

(2) recognises in particular those difficultiesbeing experienced by the arid zone regions ofsouthern Australia in the Riverina, Murray Valleyand Riverland in particular reference to oranges;

(3) commends orange growers for theirwillingness to engage in structural reform movingaway from valencias for the juice concentratemarkets towards markets for fresh fruit;

(4) commends the industry for its huge effortin the export of navel oranges; and

(5) calls for financial and export enhance-ment assistance to this significant industry in thearid zones of rural Australia.

The citrus industry has around 3,000 growersacross Australia and 94 per cent of produc-tion is undertaken in the Riverland, theMurray Valley, the Riverina and South Bur-nett. In August 1996, the exemption fromsales tax for fruit juice products which con-tained 25 per cent or more of local productwas converted to a sales tax concession. Theexemption increased demand for domesticproduce over imported produce. Prior to theintroduction of the sales tax concession, localorange juice production was relatively low

and by the mid-1980s real prices had in-creased by over 30 per cent. An ad valoremtariff of 35 per cent was introduced in 1988.At the same time, an antidumping duty wasput in place on imported juice. At this time, afloor price of $1,640 was being realised.

In the early nineties, valencia productionin Australia was almost 500,000 tonnes. Inline with the federal government’s focus onmicroeconomic reform and commitment tothe World Trade Organisation, tariff protec-tion was reduced, with the tariff for orangejuice being reduced by the former Laborgovernment from 35 per cent in 1988 to fiveper cent in July 1996. Assistance to the in-dustry had fallen from 22 per cent in the late1980s to four per cent in 1994-95. From1990 to 1995, imports of orange juice in-creased slowly, from 5,000 tonnes in 1990 toapproximately 12,000 tonnes in 1995. Theyear 1996 saw the immediate impact of thereduction in tariffs, with a 50 per cent in-crease in imported juice in one year to over18,000 tonnes—the equivalent of almost240,000 tonnes of fresh fruit.

My Riverina growers and the growers ofRiverland and Sunraysia, et cetera, re-sponded to the decreasing prices and the in-creased competition by undertaking a mas-sive valencia tree pull in the mid-1990s.They diversified to plant navels and in somecases other crops, such as grapes. A 1995benchmarking study identified that Austra-lian citrus growers were among the best inthe world in relation to on-farm efficiencies.This study supported the general beliefthroughout the industry that the problems ofbeing competitive with imported productslay with other factors, including governmentimposed costs and regulations, rather thanwith grower inefficiency.

Australian real farm gate prices fell fromaround $350 per tonne in 1984 to around$100 per tonne in 1996, when the formerLabor government left office, with the costof production increasing from around $260per tonne in 1996 to around $425 per tonnein 1999. This government has assisted byputting in place labelling laws. However, therequirements in relation to labelling are notnecessarily being complied with in the mar-ketplace, nor does the Australian citrus in-


dustry believe that the laws are strongenough to further assist consumers to easilyidentify real Australian made products incor-porating Australian fruit growth. In 1986, thecase was successfully proved that Brazil wasin fact dumping fruit in Australia. This en-tailed undertaking extensive research, whichproved that Brazil was selling frozen con-centrate orange juice at a price lower than thecost of production. Since that time, Brazilhas altered its pricing structure and linkedthe price of FCOJ to the world price.

My Riverina growers and the growers inthe electorate of the member for Mallee,John Forrest, have undergone massivechange and restructure. They have pulledhundreds of thousands of trees, changed va-rieties and gone into other horticulture suchas grapes and vegetables. To demonstrate,currently 20 per cent of our citrus is ex-ported, 30 per cent is packed for the domes-tic fresh fruit market and 47 per cent is proc-essed. In 1990, five per cent of fruit in Aus-tralia was exported, 35 per cent was packedfor the domestic market and 60 per cent wasprocessed. The member for Mallee has sup-ported the citrus industry over the manyyears that he has been in this parliament.

It is now a fact that, due to the reductionin tariffs by the former Labor government,imports of processed orange juice have in-creased by almost 100 per cent over the lastfive years, and we have more requests pend-ing. A large number of growers have alreadyleft the industry, with a majority of the re-maining growers now on the verge of finan-cial ruin and bankruptcy. A high percentageof these growers rely solely on Centrelinkparenting family payments to purchase eve-ryday living requirements. Debt levels inmany of these circumstances exceed threetimes the grower’s gross income. The presentindications are that growers on average willendure a loss of almost $1,500 per tonne thisyear, based on growers realising an averageprice of $150 per tonne.

Also, supermarket chains are using theirmarket power to abuse the system. It is inter-esting to note that the average retail price oforanges at present should equate to my Riv-erina growers, and those growers representedby the member for Mallee—

Mr Tim Fischer—And the member forFarrer.

Mrs HULL—and by the member for Far-rer, receiving almost $2,500 per tonne. In-stead, they are receiving anywhere from $90a tonne for their valencias. Recently, I liaisedwith Carmen Formosa, who is working withthe industry. She was able to provide mewith a great update on the progress of therural partnership program, PowerPACT, inrelation to the current citrus industry crisis.Carmen has indicated that 150 local farmershave enrolled in the business plan and 114—or 76 per cent of them—are citrus growers.This represents 18 per cent of the total num-ber of growers in the citrus industry in theRiverina. This demonstrates both the dy-namic and the desperate nature of the citrusindustry.

Growers understand that they need to re-structure their properties, as they are not cur-rently viable, but they do need some assis-tance to do this. Many growers have now puttogether their business plans through theprogram, which is essential for growers whoneed to determine a future path for theirfarms and their families to meet the changingindustry situations. These growers havedemonstrated their commitment to the in-dustry and their willingness to restructuretheir farms, diversify and find new markets.This highlights the need for some assistancefor growers who are normally reluctant toparticipate in such programs. Carmen hassaid:Though keen to become involved in the programand take charge of their future the growers I havespoken to have highlighted the following poten-tial failings of the program,1. Insufficient redevelopment incentive forthose in a dire financial situationWith 10 years in crisis the growers that remain inthe industry are in levels of debt that will not al-low them to borrow further to expand. Currentprices will not allow them to fund redevelopmenton farm with earnings.Therefore growers have identified that the 25%subsidy for redevelopment is not sufficient asthey will be unable to raise enough capital tocover the other 75% of the cost. Without furtherassistance they will remain trapped by the un-profitable plantings on their farms.


It is suggested that we increase the grants to 50%of the cost of redevelopment to a maximum of$30,000 for citrus growers.And provide an additional 100 grants of 100% ofthe cost of removing citrus up to $1250ha to amaximum of $12,500 per farm.It should also be recognised that there is insuffi-cient assistance for those growers wishing toleave the farming for this region.There is a definite need for some type of assis-tance package to aid growers out of the industryand into jobs or businesses in town.I recognise that Farm Family restart under theAAA package is available however the grant issubject to assets test and farmers and their part-ners may have up to $100,000 in net assets toqualify for the maximum grant.No grant is payable if net assets exceed $167,500.There must be some way that we can tailor thisgreat program to reflect the fact that there arevarying values around Australia for land and thatwhat may be a fair sum for some geographicalareas will equate to next to nothing in other areas.Therefore discriminating between farmers andproducers.

On 2 April 2001 I stood in this House tospeak about the crisis that my Riverina citrusgrowers are facing. It was in a grievance de-bate, and I genuinely felt for the plight ofthese proud producers of the citrus industryin this position. The citrus industry is one ofthe largest horticultural industries in Austra-lia, with an estimated gross value of produc-tion of $392 million and exports of around$138 million. It is the largest fresh fruit ex-porting industry, and Australia is the largestcitrus producing country in the SouthernHemisphere after Brazil. The citrus industryis an important contributor to the Australianeconomy and it is critical to the economy ofthe Riverina and to the electorate of Mallee.

The industry now seeks immediate sup-port and action from the government. Untilthe change to navels realises benefits togrowers in the mid to late years of this dec-ade and new markets are opened where largequantities of fruit can be exported, this in-dustry faces a very bleak future. This verybleak future was put in place by a formerLabor government and it has withdrawn fromthis industry their lifeblood, their support,their every opportunity to foster and forge a

pathway to survive within Australia. (Timeexpired)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jen-kins)—Is the motion seconded?

Mr Forrest—I second the motion and re-serve my right to speak.

Mr ADAMS (Lyons) (4.11 p.m.)—Themember for Riverina made a reasonablespeech on her motion in relation to the citrusindustry and the people in her electorate—until she got to the end of it and had to blamethe Labor Party for the problem. This motionshows that there is a need to do a lot more inthe Australian agricultural industry to makeus competitive while also providing a decentincome to our farmers. I should point out thatwe do not have a very thriving citrus industryin Tasmania, although we do grow quite afew lemons and I have contributed to theirgrowth.

The citrus industry is facing a tough pe-riod across Australia at the moment and it istime to start looking at a complete restructureof that industry. However, I do not believethe way to go is the way that the dairy in-dustry has been deregulated. That has beenan unmitigated disaster for the farmers con-cerned. The funds were badly targeted andthere is still no proper industry plan to allowgrowth to occur. Now farmers are fighting arearguard action. In many cases, those thathave survived are now being swallowed upby New Zealand companies which are col-lecting Australian companies as souvenirs intheir play to control milk production andmarketing. Australian farmers will becomepoor cousins to those in that land of the longwhite cloud where there are plentiful udders.

Nationally, the citrus industry is one of thelargest horticultural industries, accountingfor 20 per cent of the total value of horticul-tural production. Citrus production occurs on32,000 hectares of irrigated land, of which7,400 hectares are in South Australia. In1997-98 production was 688 kilotons, fol-lowed by a ‘light’ crop of 560 kilotons in1998-99. Australia produces on averageabout 0.8 per cent of the world’s citrus pro-duction. According to the Australian Bureauof Statistics, gross value of Australian citrusproduction in 1995-96 was $312 million.


Nearly 80 per cent of Australian citrus pro-duction comes from the irrigated areas inSouth Australia known as the Riverland, inVictoria-New South Wales known as theSunraysia, and in the Murrumbidgee Irriga-tion Area. The Central Burnett region ofQueensland, centred on Gayndah and Mun-dubbera, accounts for the majority of theremaining 20 per cent. Smaller areas of pro-duction are located in the Central Coast re-gion of New South Wales and the south-westof Western Australia.

This is a very important industry andneeds proper attention, so my feeling is thatthe Australian citrus industry should starttaking charge of its own destiny. It shouldcome up with a plan to rescue oranges fromthe doldrums and make them the food of thefuture—perhaps MacOranges, so that every-one who goes anywhere near a Mac-anything-else will be besieged with Ma-cOrange messages: what a funky food it is,what it can do for your health and variousother messages. Get Thorpy to endorse or-anges as the next Olympic food—and, Imight add, not just oranges; there are lem-ons, grapefruit, red grapefruit, tangelos,mandarins, limes, cumquats and probably afew more that are being crossed and devel-oped. Get Kylie into promoting limes andlemons as the new drink. The colours ofsummer are in these fruits— orange, lime,bright yellow—and yet somehow they arenot the selected ‘tasty’ that kids buy at thetuckshop. Why not? Because they are notseen as being ‘cool’. Artificial colours andflavours seem to be more appealing. We seekids choose the colours in clothes and lol-lies—why not in a healthier product?

While Australia is going through the‘green untouched by human hand’ bit, weseem to be ignoring those health foods thatare really natural and helpful in keepinghealthy bodies in our young ones. There isnot enough being done in the sickness pre-vention area: all the pushes are for productsthat deal with symptoms of sickness ratherthan positive endorsement of wellness andhealth. Fruit and vegetables should be eatenin considerable quantities with a few of theother food groups, such as protein—meatsand fish—and carbohydrates—grains and

pasta—and should make up the basis of ourdiets, and things that are high in fat, sugarand salt we should take in in minimalamounts.

The citrus industry should be marketingthe goodness of its product to Australians asone of the prime health foods. Perhaps weshould reinvent programs like the schoolmilk program but substitute fruit for milk. Tomake it more attractive to young ones, somefuture downstream processing will have to beconsidered. A product that can be eitherpeeled easily or peeled for packaging shouldbe produced so that the product is easer toeat. Work needs to be done as part of re-structuring to see how these sorts of uses forthe fruit can be best presented. As the grow-ers themselves have recognised:... profitability of citrus enterprises is currentlylimited by lack of economy of scale and by theability to consistently produce fruit of a qualitysuitable for fresh export.Audited approved supplier programs used bygrowers will greatly assist the future supply ofquality fruit. Marketers competing for marketshare at the expense of returns to growers, have anegative effect on grower returns. The currentarrangements for marketing fruit to the USA haveprovided an excellent exception to the normalexport marketing performance.The arrangements involve “Riversun Pty Ltd” (acooperative marketing venture) supplying a singledistributor in the USA, DNE World Fruit Sales.Exports have risen from a negligible amount fiveyears ago to approximately 30,000 tonnes or 1.66million cartons in 1999.The larger returns to growers have enabled themto adopt better management practices and qualitymanagement systems. This will also enable themto in future change to new varieties and root-stocks and to use improved production techniqueswhich will improve Australia’s competitivenesson international markets. National collaborativeresearch and development programs on varietyevaluation, control of rind disorders and qualityspecifications will assist future competitiveness.Market access has been negotiated for mandarinsto Japan and is being negotiated for citrus to In-dia.

The citrus industry also needs to take a keeninterest in the water debate under waythroughout all the states. Where the industrythrives most also coincides with areas thathave experienced drought, and they will need


some assistance in overcoming these barri-ers—and that should be in these consulta-tions with the states. Water is going to be thelimiting factor in many of our agriculturalindustries, and citrus is no exception. So cit-rus growers would be best served by ensur-ing that their voice is heard in the debateover the availability of water resources.

I believe that this motion has been usefulin highlighting the opportunities and chal-lenges in a traditional industry. Now is thetime for growers to come up with a packagefor themselves and to seek government as-sistance in facilitating a change in direction.If some of the smaller growers need to exitthen arrangements should be made and therest should be encouraged to start developingin new and diverse areas. They have a greatproduct, and now is the time to show howgood it is to the rest of the world—just asTasmanian apple growers have done over thelast 30 years. I support the motion.

Mr FORREST (Mallee) (4.20 p.m.)—Iam delighted to be here to support the motionby the member for Riverina. The first pointof the motion asks that the House acknowl-edge the financial difficulties being experi-enced by certain sectors of the citrus indus-try. I am very grateful to the member for Ly-ons for his positive remarks and affirmationthat this industry is suffering dire financialcircumstances. He has called for restructur-ing, and he is right. But I ask the House torecognise the enormous effort that this in-dustry has undertaken in the last eight or nineyears. There has been enormous restructuringof an industry with too much reliance on va-lencia varieties and which has been unable tocompete with that particular variety cominginto Australia as frozen concentrate fromBrazil. The industry ought to be commendedfor the effort it has put into that.

I think what the member for Riverina isasking for—and I will support her in this—issome greater recognition from the govern-ment, from this place, to assist this industryfurther. It is an icon industry to the arid zoneregions of southern Australia. The memberfor Riverina has mentioned those regions, ashas the member for Lyons. It is a principalindustry in my electorate of Mallee, a princi-pal industry on which the prosperous provin-

cial city of Mildura has grown and on whichit relies for substantial employment and forsupport of all the other services it uses—amajor issue.

In response to the member for Lyons, Iwould like to say that all those other prod-ucts—the tangelos, the mandarins—are go-ing really well. The industry has respondedand grown the products the world is askingfor. That has been done. The member forRiverina is really saying here that there is aproblem with oranges. The sad fact is that inequivalent fresh tonnage the concentrate thatis coming from Brazil today is the size of theAustralian orange industry—300,000 tonnesof fresh oranges. That is what 28,000 tonnesof concentrate represents. It is enormouscompetition. The only future this industryhas, sadly, is its export activity. It has donethis well, and the member for Lyons hasmade reference to some very good cases withRiversun in South Australia. My growersnow rely on that single-desk opportunity toget their crop into the United States, particu-larly California and places like that—albeitthat they get a three-month window toachieve that. It is very costly to the industry,but thankfully the returns have been gener-ous.

But that is only probably 10 per cent oftheir crop. They still have the other 90 percent. That costs an enormous amount to growin the first place. Some of my growers tellme that it costs them more to pick that cropthan their return for it. Sadly, many havemade the decision to leave it on the tree,which is not healthy for the long-term futureof the industry. It saps the trees’ capacity togrow a good crop in the future. It is a prob-lem that is going around in circles.

I am here in the chamber to support mygrowers. I am immensely proud of theirachievement and their capacity to respond tothe real world. We asked them to do that. Weasked them not to focus on the domesticmarket; the opportunity was in exporting,and we asked them to go for it. I was gratefulthat the previous Labor government back in1996 for once did something that I couldcommend them for.

Opposition members interjecting—


Mr FORREST—Do something right andyou will get a positive from me. They wereable to produce a market diversification pro-gram which resulted in the spending of $9million in market development and qualityassurance, producing product that the marketwas really wanting and moving away fromthe reliance on valencias.

With all the money that was spent in thepotential markets of Taiwan, Korea and In-dia, none of those markets have subsequentlymanifested. That is the tragedy for the in-dustry that has worked so hard, so I wouldask for the government’s support. We under-stand there is a reference via the governmentfor a Productivity Commission study. Givethis industry its day in court. Give it an op-portunity to say it had tariff adjustmentfoisted upon it, cold turkey, to compete withan aggressive competitor, Brazil. Give thisindustry its opportunity to state its case. Seewhat comes out of a Productivity Commis-sion finding and respond to that to give anindustry—3,000 families across the southernregion of Australia—some hope that thisparliament cares about their financial cir-cumstances. (Time expired)

Mr HORNE (Paterson) (4.25 p.m.)—As arepresentative from a rural and regionalelectorate, I am always pleased to rise tosupport any initiative to assist rural and re-gional residents. I was delighted to hear amember from Tasmania supporting the citrusindustry, because we all know there is not alot of citrus in Tasmania. But that is the La-bor Party. The Labor Party does support hon-est initiatives. I was delighted to hear themember for Mallee saying that Labor initia-tives in 1996 were good. They are the sortsof things that we are proud of. When I had alook at this today I thought, ‘Yes, that soundslike something that a member might proposeimmediately prior to an election,’ but I amgoing to give her the benefit of the doubt: Iknow that the citrus industry is very impor-tant to her part of the world.

I would also point out that in the stateparliament on 5 June the state Minister forAgriculture in New South Wales announceda study into the citrus industry. As a matterof fact, the federal parliament is also in-volved in this through the ACC, the Area

Consultative Committee, and the departmentof workplace relations. A study is being doneinto the citrus industry in New South Wales.

Mrs Hull interjecting—Mr HORNE—This is the whole point: at

least let us get the result of that study—and itis being supported by government at bothstate and federal level—so we know what weare doing is right. They are looking at farmore diverse things than simply supportingthe valencia juice industry. They are lookingat alternative species, they are looking atalternative markets and they are looking atthe value adding and the high value marketfor fresh fruit.

I think there comes a time when we haveto say: if we cannot compete at the low endof the market then really that is probably apart of the market we do not want to competein. We are surely better to compete at thehigh end of any market, because that is thesort of thing that Australia is doing mostsuccessfully. Because we have an imageoverseas of clean and green primary produc-tion, that is the area where we can exportsuccessfully. This is a concept that people onthe government side often have difficulty inaccepting. They think that we should at alltimes be competing at all levels. If we cannotcompete, let us accept that that is not themarket we want to be in. Let us get the re-sults of this report. If we can grow other spe-cies of citrus where we are growing valenciatrees and market the fruit at a more valuableprice, perhaps that is the best way to go.

This study will be looking at citrus beingan alternative to cotton growing. Why? Be-cause an acre of citrus does not need as muchwater as an acre of cotton, and the return isgreater. If water is a scarce commodity foragriculture in our arid western regions, let usstart picking the crops that have less demandfor water. I would think that sort of thingwould make sense. Let us maximise thevalue of our primary production by beingsmart, not by wanting to do something thatwe have done for the last 50 years. Becausegrandfather did it this way does not mean itis the best way to go. Australian agriculturehas shown that it is very successful at thatsort of thing—innovation, value adding,finding niche markets and capitalising on


that. That is why I commend Richard Amery,the state minister in New South Wales, forhaving this inquiry. I look forward to hisreport, and I look forward to the future of anew citrus industry in Australia.

Mr ZAHRA (McMillan) (4.30 p.m.)—When we are talking about matters to dowith rural and regional Australia, it isimportant that we do not limit our debate toone particular industry. In the context oftoday’s discussion, it is important not tofocus only on citrus, although that is thefocus of the motion that the honourablemember for Riverina has introduced into thisparliament, but to talk about a raft ofdifferent rural industries which are incrediblyimportant to those communities in rural andregional Australia which depend on thoseindustries for their livelihood.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jen-kins)—Order! The time allotted for the de-bate has expired.

Mr ZAHRA—That is a disappointment tome, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure it is adisappointment to the parliament.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Thehonourable member will resume his seat.The debate is adjourned and the resumptionof the debate will be made an order of theday for the next sitting. The honourablemember for McMillan will have leave tocontinue speaking when the debate is re-sumed.

GRIEVANCE DEBATEQuestion proposed:That grievances be noted.

Goods and Services Tax: CommunityOrganisations

Ms JANN McFARLANE (Stirling) (4.32p.m.)—I have a grievance. I am going tospeak today on the confusion caused by theintroduction of the Howard government’sgoods and services tax on the backbone ofour community sector. I speak on this topicwith some authority: 25 years of working inthe community sector for a number of com-munity service organisations and non-profitorganisations, and of being on committees ofgroups ranging from playgroups to schoolP&Cs to adult sporting clubs. These organi-

sations play a vital role in the fabric of oursociety. I am talking about the organisationsthat our kids play at, that help people in trou-ble in our local area and that run our sportingclubs. What they are faced with under thenew tax system is confusion, uncertainty andin some cases the real threat of closure.

Why has this tax system caused this typeof chaos? It is causing chaos because it iscomplicated, ambiguous and in some casesdownright destructive. Take, for example,the average sporting group in my electorateof Stirling—I have many such sportinggroups. I have received many calls in myoffice from sporting groups grappling tocome to terms with the GST. What has madeit so hard? Firstly, the committees of theseorganisations are usually made up of volun-teers. Volunteers, in this International Yearof the Volunteer, are struggling and in somecases giving up due to the complexities ofthis tax system. The honorary treasurer ineach of these groups is coming under in-creasing pressure in their voluntary role—pressure that is causing many of them to quitand to cease their contribution. They havespent the last 12 months coming to termswith issues such as GST registration andchanges in the way their organisation isviewed by the Australian Taxation Office.

I recently hosted a BAS inquiry hearing inScarborough, in my electorate. I heard firsthand from both small business operators andcommunity groups about the absolute confu-sion and frustration experienced over theeveryday application of Mr Howard’s andMr Costello’s tax system. One of the mostdamning statements came from a charteredaccountant who spoke to the meeting aboutthe increased pressure on sporting clubcommittees. He had been the treasurer of hislocal tennis club and he spoke about how hehad to resign, reluctantly, from his positiondue to the sheer time needed to perform hisvoluntary role. This is a man whose account-ancy practice deals daily with small busi-nesses coming to grips with BAS and otherGST related issues. He said that there hadbeen an enormous amount of misunder-standing over what the club’s responsibilitieswere in relation to the GST. For example,there was an argument on the club committee


about whether they should register for theGST or not. The accountant advised the clubnot to, due to the huge amount of paperworkassociated with compliance. He told them itwould be cheaper in terms of time and re-sources to simply absorb the extra costs ofthe GST on the club’s maintenance and run-ning than to have to go through the rigmaroleof complying. Why bother when the end re-sult is basically the same in terms of cost?Countless hours of work for no tangiblebenefit.

This tennis club was not the only organi-sation faced with this dilemma. A group ofvolunteers from the eastern suburbs of myelectorate run a voluntary organisation whichputs on blue light discos and dances for allage groups in our local area and alsothroughout the state. Their work with at riskyouth through the blue light disco program iscommendable. They also put on concerts anddance parties, free of charge, for childrensuffering from cancer through the CanTeenprogram. This group fundraises through sup-plying local councils with concrete slabs fortheir footpaths.

The new tax system has hit this group inthree ways. The first is GST registration.This group, like many others, applied forGST registration because they thought theyhad to. They thought they had to because theinformation given to them by the governmentand the Australian Taxation Office duringthe GST implementation was defective. Itwas extremely ambiguous; it was not clear.This group found as they approached taxtime that they really should not have regis-tered for the GST. They did not need to, andthe amount of paperwork it created was pro-hibitive. They subsequently had to apply toderegister. The emotional toll on the com-mittee caused by this was heavy. Findingadvice through the current phone system wasboth time consuming and frustrating. Theystill have not had written notification fromthe tax office that their deregistration hasactually occurred, they only have copies ofthe documents that they personally lodgedwith the ATO as proof of lodgment.

The next dilemma was the status of theirtreatment as a charity. They rang the tax of-fice and received the charity pack. This was

subsequently filled in, and endorsementsought. For those of you in the House whoare not aware of the processes involved, Iwill briefly outline them so they can be betterunderstood. The current government hasbrought in a system of endorsing charities.Previously, a non-profit organisation whichhad operated as a charity prior to the intro-duction of the GST had self-assessed. Underthe new system, to receive treatment as acharity they need to submit an application tobe endorsed. The information for this processis in a tax office publication called CharityPack. Once the application has been com-pleted, it is sent to the ATO for review. Inthe case of my local community group, theyreceived a letter from the ATO advisingthem that their application had been rejected.I will read to the House some of the text ofthis letter:

Dear DirectorsINCOME TAX:Notification of refusal of endorsement as an

Income Tax Exempt CharityWe refer to your application for endorsement

as an Income Tax Exempt Charity.You are advised that ...

XXX—the name of the group—is not considered to be an Income Tax ExemptCharity and your request for endorsement hasbeen refused.

Your organisation does not fall to be consid-ered to be an institution that is established and runto advance or promote a charitable purpose, asdescribed in the Charity Pack. The following arenot considered to be charities:

recreational and social bodies ....Further InformationThe following publications, which are avail-

able from our website at www.taxreform.ato.gov.au, provide further information:

• CLUBPACK—helps you work out if yourorganisation is exempt from income tax.

• CHARITYPACK—helps you work out if youare a charity.

Should you require any further information theATO has a range of publications to assist you.You should contact the Tax Reform Infoline ifyou need further assistance.

The letter then goes on to outline the reviewrights under the legislation by giving the


standard ATO response for appeals. Thegroup then rang the infoline and spoke to thecase officer from the ATO, but did not re-ceive any coherent answer on their status.My office then rang the case officer andmade inquiries on behalf of the organisation.The answers given were so obscure that myoffice asked to talk to a supervisor. Theproblem with the ATO letter is that it doesnot provide information on the reasons forthe rejection. It then asks the group to getfurther information by recommending thatthey get a copy of the pack that they havejust read and applied with. It is effectivelysending the group back to the pack they havejust used. No explanation is given.

My office then spoke to the supervisor,who would not provide them with the num-ber for a direct contact in Western Australiaso we could contact them to find out infor-mation about the application. A promise wasmade to my office that someone from WAwould ring the office and talk to my staff. Acall was received from the ATO in Perth.After discussion it was agreed that informa-tion on a tax ruling for community groups,and a club pack, would be sent out. Whenasked about what training the ATO had pro-vided to groups like this one, the answer wasthat money had been made available to peakbodies to train groups. Investigation revealedthat this money was limited to peak bodies.In my electorate of Stirling there are over400 community groups and the vast majorityof these are independent from peak bodies.There are over 4,000 such groups in WesternAustralia alone, so the magnitude of thisproblem can be seen.

When the ATO was asked whether therewere officers similar to the GST complianceofficers used in the business sector for thesecommunity groups, officers that would beavailable to visit and advise them, my officewas given the answer, ‘No.’ My office wastold that the Internet and the infoline wassufficient and that no personal support wasavailable. This reveals that the governmenthas failed its obligations in relation to thecommunity sector. It has failed to properlyresource an education campaign that is sorelyneeded in the community. It wasted count-less of millions of dollars on the Unchain

Your Heart campaign, a campaign that pro-vided no real information to the communityand was spectacular in its failure. Money waswasted on glossy propaganda rather thanconstructive assistance, advice and educationseminars for volunteer management com-mittees.

What has this caused? It has caused con-fusion amongst these small groups run bycommunity volunteers who do not under-stand the intricacies of this tax system. It hasfailed to properly provide support for a vitalsector of our community, a sector that pro-vides services that enhance the lives of mil-lions of Australians.

The community group I have been dis-cussing now has a third problem. It is tryingto gain endorsement as a deductible gift re-cipient under item 4.1.1 as a public benevo-lent institution. This group enjoyed thisstatus under the previous tax system but nowits status is unclear. The endorsement criteriaare complicated and rigid. What happens tothis organisation if this endorsement is notachieved? It will struggle to fund raise for itsactivities that are playing a constructive rolein our community. I will continue to assistlocal community organisations in my elec-torate on this issue. I will be writing to themall to offer assistance. What I want theTreasurer to do is to take action and providefield officers and education seminars to helpavert a crisis in this sector. It needs to bedone now. What does the government needto do? It needs to do more than hide behindglossy brochures—it needs to provide activesupport to our community organisations.(Time expired).

Defence: Headquarters AustralianTheatre

Mr NAIRN (Eden-Monaro) (4.42 p.m.)—My grievance today is that the AustralianLabor Party seems to be having two-bobeach way on the location for the latest de-fence project being announced, which is theHeadquarters Australian Theatre—the op-erational headquarters of Defence. This proj-ect has been around for a number of years. Infact, back in 1996 the then Minister for De-fence, Ian McLachlan, was certainly givingconsideration to this particular project. Iknow that there was some debate within De-


fence and the forces as to just how this par-ticular project should proceed. I rememberspeaking on a number of occasions to theminister at that time about the prospect ofthis project being located in the regionaround Canberra and Queanbeyan but at thetime there was still a lot of work to be done. Ithen spoke with the minister following IanMcLachlan, Mr John Moore, as this projectwas further being developed and more re-cently with the current Minister for Defence,Peter Reith.

It is a great project. It is a $150 millionproject. It will employ nearly 1,000 on anongoing basis. Two weeks ago the Ministerfor Defence was in my electorate in Quean-beyan to announce that this region, theQueanbeyan region, would be the locationfor this vital project and that the Queanbeyanregion was chosen for a variety of reasons—including cost effectiveness. One of the as-pects that probably was not brought outanywhere near enough was the opportunityto retain personnel in the defence forces. Weknow in this region that people in Defenceoften are brought into Canberra for a promo-tion. They will be here for a period of timeand then, to be promoted further, they haveto be taken out of the Canberra area again toanother part of Australia. Then they will of-ten come back into Canberra yet again. Theyseem to be coming in and out. This particularproject going ahead in this region will meanthat there will be a greater capacity for pro-motions within one area, which actuallyhelps with retaining officers. It was the sub-ject of an inquiry which showed that thataspect would be improved with further de-velopment of these sorts of facilities.

I was particularly pleased that the regionwas chosen for this vital project, and it wasannounced, as I said, a couple of weeks agoby the Minister for Defence. It will meansomething in the order of 250 jobs during theconstruction phase, which is huge, and weknow the flow-on effect of anything in thebuilding industry like that is enormous for aregion as well. Up to 1,000 people workingon an ongoing basis means work for another3,000 or 4,000 people, and the incomes thatcome from that and the flow-on effect aswell into the community will be fantastic.

So I was rather concerned to see theprovocation by the Labor Party in relation tothis. In fact, two days before the decisionwas announced the shadow spokesperson fordefence, Steve Martin, was in Newcastle,and he was asked by the Mayor of Newcastlewhether, if a decision was made prior to anelection, the Labor Party would review it.Williamtown was one of the competing re-gions for this particular project. In the New-castle Herald Lord Mayor John Tate said heasked him, the shadow spokesperson for de-fence, if the ALP would review any govern-ment decision made before the election onthe headquarters of Australian Theatre, andthen said:He gave me an undertaking and therefore themeeting an undertaking that he would review thedecision.

That was two days before the decision wasactually made. So he has given a guaranteeto the Mayor of Newcastle that, if the deci-sion does not go to Williamtown and if theLabor Party is elected to government, he willreview it. When the decision was made themember for Paterson, who also wanted to seeit go into his area near Newcastle, wasquoted as saying:I will continue to put to my colleagues the need tooverturn this ... decision when we take govern-ment later this year.

So Bob Horne has certainly highlighted thathe will be out there making sure that the La-bor Party not only reviews the decision butalso actually overturns it. I know that he car-ries a bit of weight around within the LaborParty, so I am sure that he will go throughwith that particular comment. But then theshadow spokesperson, Steve Martin, after thedecision was made put out a press releasesaying:Labor doesn’t oppose this decision ...

So he did not say that Labor supported it; hesaid that they did not oppose it. Given that hetold the Mayor of Newcastle only two daysbefore that, if the decision went againstNewcastle, he would review it in a Laborgovernment, he has chosen his words verycarefully. He said, ‘Labor doesn’t opposethis decision.’ He went on to say that ques-tions might be be asked about this decision.So he tried to make out that he was support-


ing it, because he wants to support the Laborcandidate in Eden-Monaro, but he chose hiswords very carefully to leave the door opento do a review if the Labor Party happen toget into government.

Then we had the other nonsense. Therewas debate about where this site is actuallygoing to be, and there has got to be a lot ofwork done to choose the site now that weknow the region in which it is going to besituated. There are various sites withinQueanbeyan and the adjacent Yarrowlumlashire, and there is also the possibility of a siteon Harman, which is actually in the ACT,but it is in the ACT by the width of a railwayline. There is a railway line separating Har-man and one of the sites that was being con-sidered within Queanbeyan for this particularproject. So we have had Steve Martin, KimBeazley and the Labor candidate in Eden-Monaro on various occasions actually saythat if the project ended up on one side of therailway line it would be good for Quean-beyan, but if it happened to be on the otherside of the railway line, a distance of about20 metres—the width of the railway line thatforms the border between the ACT and NewSouth Wales—then that would not be anygood for Queanbeyan. What absolute non-sense. These people are absolute turkeys.They think if it is on one side it is okay, butif it happens to be just across the other sideof the railway line then it is not okay. It isjust a nonsense. This is going to be good forthe whole region.

The ACT Chief Minister is not perturbedabout it going to Queanbeyan. He knows thatit is great for the whole region: a $150 mil-lion project, 1,000 people permanently em-ployed, 250 people during construction—heknows it will be good. The various industriesknow it will be a great project. The executivedirector of the Master Builders Association,David Dawes, is reported as follows:... the decision to locate the headquarters inQueanbeyan would provide a boost to the re-gional economy, both in terms of capital worksand jobs. I note that the government is indicatingthat the complex will mean an investment of up to$150 million and an ongoing workforce of up to1000 people.

‘This will have a positive impact on Queanbeyanand Canberra, not to mention the surroundingregion’ ...

He understands how this works. He is out inthe real world, not like these other blokeswho think that one side of the railway line isokay and the other side is not. John Futer, forthe ACT and Southern New South WalesBranch of the Housing Industry Association,said the Queanbeyan building industry al-ready contributed around $100 million a yearto the local economy. He said:The announcement of a single project worth $150million is tremendous news and will see the in-dustry more than double in size during the con-struction phase ... While the project is of a com-mercial nature, the benefits to the local housingindustry are obvious, with demand for qualityhousing set to increase as Army, Navy and Air-force personnel are relocated to the region.

Good stuff—they understand that it is greatfor the region overall, and we need to justdecide on the most appropriate location.There are a number of sites within Quean-beyan and the Yarrowlumla shire that couldbe appropriate. There is also the site on theback part of Harman, very close to the vari-ous sites being considered within Quean-beyan.

The Mayor of Queanbeyan, Frank Pan-gallo, who has supported it very strongly andwho has formed a task force within Quean-beyan to try and get some more investmentinto the region, understood this. He said thatthe best site has to be chosen, and it does notmatter where it is; as long as it is within thisregion it is going to be great news forQueanbeyan. It will be certainly great newsfor Queanbeyan, which is actually goingvery well. It has had record increases in de-velopment applications over the last year andstrong growth in the real estate market,which is a great sign. But this particularproject is a great project and will be deliv-ered only by a member in the coalition gov-ernment. (Time expired)

Aged Care: General PractitionersMr EDWARDS (Cowan) (4.52 p.m.)—I

want to deal with an issue that confrontsmany seniors in Australia, regardless ofwhere they might reside. Once I have read aletter that I have received from an organisa-


tion called Elderbloom Community CareCentres in my electorate, members in otherelectorates will recognise exactly what I amtalking about. I received this letter just over amonth ago. It says:Dear GrahamRE: LACK OF GENERAL PRACTITION-ERS FOR RESIDENTS IN AGED CARE.I know you must be aware of the numerous seri-ous concerns of Aged Care Providers. I shouldlike to draw to your attention, yet another con-cern.Can you imagine the trauma of being old andfrail and to not have the security of your owndoctor to care for your needs?For a period of eight (8) weeks this year, despitean extensive search, one of our Hostels was un-able to find a General Practitioner for ten (10)Residents who had been left without the servicesof a doctor.One of the attending GPs who cared for five (5)Nursing Home Residents, and thirteen (13) HostelResidents, announced with only eight (8) weeks’notice, that he was retiring. This GP was not suc-cessful in his efforts to alleviate the situation or tosecure the services of a colleague willing to act ashis replacement in caring for his patients.No General Practitioner — also means — noLocum Service.Our Hostels Manager and Members of Staff con-tacted families of the affected Residents, and theResidents themselves. No one was able to find areplacement GP. The Manager and her Staff lob-bied the other attending Physicians until reluc-tantly, one accepted the Nursing Home Residentsand those at one Hostel, leaving 10 Residentswithout a GP.We also contacted by telephone, every GeneralPractice in the telephone book within a 15kmradius. This comprised some 35 Practices. No GPwould accept one new patient, as it meant leavingthe surgery to visit. We contacted the GP Advi-sory Board and the North Metropolitan HealthServices, both of whom placed an advertisementfor a GP with no response. We contacted theAustralian Medical Association which was sym-pathetic, but of no assistance. Our Director ofNursing personally contacted the State HealthDepartment and her call was never returned.When she contacted the Commonwealth Depart-ment, she was informed that Mr Stokes was toobusy to get back to her and recommended that shecontact the State Health Department. The StateDepartment also, did not return her call.

On one occasion whilst a Physician for the Lo-cum Service was visiting a Resident, when re-quested to do so by a Staff Member, he agreed tosee a Resident of the retiring GP who urgentlyneeded attention. He wrote an x-ray request for alocal Clinic and left. The x-ray result and the noweven more distressed-and-in-pain Resident re-turned with a result showing displaced coccygealfracture. Upon being contacted by telephone foranalgesia for this Resident, the Locum Serviceexpressed no interest in our Resident and abruptlyterminated the conversation. The result was that—for a simple analgesic we had no choice but tocall an ambulance and send the Resident to Joon-dalup Hospital’s Emergency Department.Our enquiries in regard to this lack of account-ability seem to indicate that there is very littleregulation — if any — on General Practitionersor Locum Services.We are concerned that GPs seem to have littleliability. No Registered Nurse, for instance, wouldever go off duty knowing there was no cover forthe next shift. Obviously the General Practitionersare not self-regulated. Does anyone have anyinterest in regulating this profession? The onlyresponses we have received from State and Fed-eral Government Departments, were to be ‘fobbedoff’. The Departmental attitude that it is the re-sponsibility of Residents and Relatives to find aGP is totally unworkable if there is no regulation.Many General Practitioners dislike leaving theirsurgery and simply refuse to do so, knowing thereis no law or Government regulation in placewhich requires them to do so.Residents in Hostels and Nursing Homes aremostly very frail aged people. Upon entering aHostel or Nursing Home, their family doctor willrarely continue to service the patient, citing trav-elling costs and the ever-increasing documenta-tion requirements.Eventually—when a Member of our Staff tookher father to a newly opened General Practice,and informed the GP of our problem, he agreed tosee our Residents who were without a doctor.This is a serious problem, which we see as a de-nial of human rights of Residents in Aged CareFacilities, by the General Practitioners.Can the situation be improved in any way?Yours sincerelyBrian Cooper.

Brian is the chairperson of the Elderbloomgroup and, in my view, they do a very goodjob. The group includes Belgrade Park Vil-lage, Jacaranda Lodge, Barridale Lodge andWanneroo Community Nursing Home. Brian


is a very well-known and well-respected lo-cal identity and he is a person who keeps hisfinger on the pulse. I also take the opportu-nity to congratulate the staff who work in thevarious care centres because I know they arededicated, and I know, too, that they arefrustrated and angry at the general lack ofconcern and care this government has for thejob they are doing.

Kim Beazley and Jenny Macklin recentlylaunched another ALP policy that will see usinto the next federal election, and it is calledMedicare After Hours. In talking aboutMedicare After Hours, both Kim Beazleyand Jenny Macklin recognised the problem Iam talking about and they recognised, too,that it is a fairly widespread problem. It isone of the things that Medicare After Hourswill assist in, because we will have a 24-hourtelephone health advice line staffed by nursesunder the supervision of doctors. The Medi-care After Hours help line will provide im-mediate, expert medical advice, includinginformation on the most suitable treatmentoptions, such as calling an ambulance, at-tending an emergency clinic, visiting a GP orself-treatment. Kim Beazley went on to say:Medicare After Hours will demonstrate the bene-fits of the Commonwealth and State working to-gether. It will enable Commonwealth funded GPsto work in partnership with Emergency Depart-ment staff funded by the States.

Kim Beazley and Jenny Macklin also wenton to note that other services that will beintegrated with the proposed service are:Improved arrangements for nursing homes andaged care hostels to access medical assistanceafter hours. A significant number of emergencyadmissions involve transfers from nursing homeswhere medical assistance cannot be obtained for aresident suffering difficulty during the night. Of-ten these people would be better off treated intheir own bed without the stress of being moved.

That is a very important point to note and itis one that I am pleased has been picked upin this Medicare After Hours policy. I amsure that if such a policy is implemented itwill lead to a better service being extended tothose in aged care, because it will enablepeople first of all to contact someone who ismedically trained—for example, a nursewho, under the supervision of a doctor, willgive people the first contact that they need. It

needs to be said that this 24-hour serviceshould be helpful to doctors who provide, inthis instance, say, a locum service, because itwill vet a number of calls and it will savedoctors doing some of that work. It will freeup other doctors who can take the next step,which is to visit people in aged care and pro-vide to them the service that they need with-out the aged person having to be relocatedfrom the comfort of their bed and without theneed for them to be taken by ambulance toan emergency service at a hospital wherethey may need to wait some time before theyget treatment.

In my view, a lot of these issues can be re-solved by common sense. They can be re-solved by the Commonwealth and the stateworking together. They can be resolved byministers who care about their responsibili-ties. In this instance it is important—it iscrucial indeed—that we get a minister foraged care who does know about her portfolioresponsibilities and who does care for thepeople who are in aged care. If we had aminister who did such, a lot of these prob-lems could be resolved. It is indeed a crucialissue and one that the government needs toturn its attention to. (Time expired)

Rural and Regional Australia: RegionalSolutions Program

Roads: Deer Park BypassMr RONALDSON (Ballarat) (5.02

p.m.)—This will probably be the last timethat I speak in a grievance debate, so it iswith a note of sadness that I do so today, butI want to speak about a number of issues inthe 10 minutes available to me. First, I ex-press some very real concerns on behalf ofmy constituents in relation to the plans of theAustralian Labor Party for the Regional So-lutions Program—

Mr Kerr—You’re wasting your last 10minutes.

Mr RONALDSON—That is a very inter-esting comment from the member because,coming from a regional area, he should knowbetter than to attack the Regional SolutionsProgram. I am a bit surprised, given Tasma-nia’s problems, particularly under a stateLabor government, that he would attack fromthe table the Regional Solutions Program.


The honourable member is as aware as I amthat in the 13 years of his government abso-lutely nothing was done for regional Austra-lia. As soon as we do something, such as putin this innovative Regional Solutions Pro-gram, the first thing the Labor Party does isattack it. Why the member for Denisonwould want to attack the Regional SolutionsProgram really is a matter of great surprise tome. Whether it is with a measure of guilt fornot having done it when he was in govern-ment, I am not too sure, but what is evenmore surprising is that the Labor candidatefor the seat of Ballarat is also attacking theRegional Solutions Program.

It is one thing being preselected in Mel-bourne and moving out to a country seat, butit is another thing altogether actually havingsome understanding of what the require-ments of regional and rural Victoria are. Thesimple fact is that there has been a notionrunning around the country for a while thatrural and regional communities have someexpectation that everything will be done forthem. That is not right. Indeed, what regionaland rural communities want is the ability tomaximise their own advantages. Part of thatis to be able to take back some ownership oftheir own future—for instance, their ownfuture economic and social wellbeing, et cet-era. There are many great things about theRegional Solutions Program, but the onething that is absolutely pivotal is that deci-sion making is going from Canberra out tothe regions. This is the first program in thiscountry’s history that takes the decisionmaking ownership back to regional and ruralcommunities.

Many listeners of this broadcast aroundAustralia today will be acutely aware thatevery single area and district—indeed, townsand cities within those districts—has differ-ent needs. In my electorate, the needs ofDaylesford are different from the needs ofHalls Gap. The needs of Marnoo are differ-ent from the needs of Ballan. The needs ofAvoca are different from the needs of Had-don. Every town has different needs. Thebeauty of the Regional Solutions Program isthat solutions are determined by the commu-nities themselves, as opposed to a narrowlydefined set of bureaucratic principles which

in the past have made it extraordinarily diffi-cult for regional and rural communities tomaximise their own advantages that I re-ferred to before.

This is a fantastic program. I am yet tohear from the Labor Party that it will con-tinue it. The community of Haddon, I canassure you, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, 10days ago were very happy when, with theLiberal Party candidate, I announced$220,000 for the Haddon community centre.The Haddon community, with the assistanceof the Golden Plains Shire Council and theHaddon Lions, are driving their own devel-opment and taking ownership of their ownsolutions. I congratulate the Golden PlainsShire Council, Councillor Gerald Dupe andhis fellow councillors on meeting the$220,000 funding.

I can see that the member for Denison isanxious to get to his feet, but I still have fiveminutes left and he will have his opportunityin due course. I want very briefly to talkabout that Haddon program because it willenable a number of community activities tocome under the one roof. There will be pro-vision for maternal and family child care andthere will be some visiting doctors’ rooms.All those sorts of things enable a communityto be self-sufficient.

I want now to turn briefly to the Deer ParkBypass. Many of our listeners may or maynot be aware that funding for the nationalhighways system comes from the federalgovernment, but the state governments are,in effect, our agents. They carry out themaintenance. The member for Mallee hasjust walked into the House. He will beacutely aware of this and he is a great sup-porter of our national highways system. Likeme, he is a great supporter of the federalgovernment’s Roads to Recovery program,which is another huge initiative at great riskunder an ALP government.

There has been a lot of talk about the DeerPark Bypass because we are gettingsqueezed. The Western Highway, and theWestern Highway users, are being squeezedby the encroachment of residential develop-ment in that important area, that great stripbetween Adelaide and Melbourne which isthe lifeblood of Western Victoria. It is being


squeezed by residential development andlack of planning. That will need to be ad-dressed by the Deer Park Bypass.

The priorities for the spending of nationalhighways funding are determined by the stategovernments. I thought we were gettingthere. We had a long delay from the stateminister, Peter Batchelor, about the route.That took over 12 months to decide. Itshould have been a fairly simple process, butit was dragged out. We thought we might begetting the Deer Park Bypass up towards thetop of the state government’s priority list but,when the transport minister was away, thestate member for Bendigo West, who be-came the assistant transport minister, wastrying to push the Calder Highway back upthe list. The Howard government has alreadyinvested $100 million into Calder. We thinkit has had a fair slice of the action. We arealways happy for more funding to be put intoCalder, but that should not happen to thedetriment of the Deer Park Bypass.

I know that the Calder Highway is an im-portant area to a number of my colleagues,and to the member for Mallee as well—and Iknow he has been a great supporter of thefunding that has gone into it. Some $100million has been put into that, and it is ap-palling that an assistant transport ministerhas utilised his position to protect himself inhis own electorate when he knows as well asI do that the Deer Park Bypass should beright at the top of the list.

There was a terrific announcement lastweek about the Australian prisoner of warmemorial. How entirely appropriate that thismagnificent Minister for Veterans’ Affairs,the Hon. Bruce Scott, happens to be in theHouse. He has been a terrific minister and agreat friend of veterans in this country—avery good friend. After considerable contactby me and after a direct approach from theLiberal candidate for Ballarat, Russell Mark,in relation to funding, I am very pleased thata further $150,000 was allocated to this proj-ect last week. That brings to $200,000—

Mr Bruce Scott—Very deserving.Mr RONALDSON—It is a fantastic

project. It brings to $200,000 the directCommonwealth funding on top of that tax

deductibility via an act of parliament passedthrough this House earlier last year. That is asignificant contribution. On behalf of thepeople of Ballarat, and on behalf of formerPOWs throughout Australia, I would like tothank the minister most sincerely.

Very quickly in the time that is left, wehave Knowledge Nation—or noodle nationas it is now affectionately called—and Net-working the Nation. The only similarity be-tween those two is that they rhyme. Net-working the Nation has put $7 million intomy electorate in direct funding. That is aver-aged across other electorates, so it is notdouble dipping. It constitutes 30-odd projectsinto my electorate. They are about makingsure that regional and rural Australians areable to access a modern and quick informa-tion technology system which their metro-politan counterparts—(Time expired)Antarctic Division: Hobart Headquarters

Mr KERR (Denison) (5.12 p.m.)—Whileit is a little early for valedictories, with allmy colleagues on this side of the House, Iwish the retiring member for Ballarat well.We will have a lot of opportunities to speakmore on this subject. There is one pointwhere we join in common when we put asidethe partisanship of politics, and that is thateach of us values what we bring to thisHouse from the perspective of our elector-ates. I will use this grievance debate to high-light an area where I believe the Minister forthe Environment and Heritage, Senator Rob-ert Hill, has failed to make a decision whichis in the national interest, and it is certainlynot in the interests of my state.

By way of background, I should mentionthat from the earliest days of ANARE, theAustralian National Antarctic Research Ex-pedition, Hobart has been the point of de-parture for Antarctic expeditioners. Underthe Whitlam government, my predecessor inthe seat of Denison, John Coates, persuadedthe Whitlam government that they shouldmove the now Antarctic Division Headquar-ters to Hobart, where it has been an impor-tant part of our community infrastructureever since. Despite the defeat of the Whitlamgovernment, my immediate predecessor, Mi-chael Hodgman, continued the campaigningeffort, albeit from a different political party,


and saw the implementation and building ofthe Antarctic Division Headquarters in King-ston. In my term under the Hawke andKeating governments, we saw new resourcesput into Antarctic work in our state and theestablishment of the Institute of Antarcticand Southern Ocean Studies at the Universityof Tasmania; the establishment of the Ant-arctic Foundation; the headquartering ofCCAMLR; and the unsuccessful but verypassionate campaign to obtain the headquar-ters for the Australian Antarctic Treaty na-tions.

Of all those enterprises, this has been amultipartisan approach, because it has hadthe support of the Nationals, the Greens andthe Democrats. All have recognised thatHobart ought be the centre of AustralianAntarctic efforts. Currently, about 65 percent of Australian Antarctic scientists live inHobart, and about 95 per cent on the easternseaboard. The Antarctic related industry isworth about $93 million per annum. Overtime there have been approaches to havemore efficient ways of reaching the Austra-lian Antarctic Territory than solely by sea.Whilst the sea trip is an unforgettable experi-ence for those who are privileged enough tohave that opportunity, for obvious reasons itis wise that we also have an operational aircapacity which is a strip not built in any con-flict with environmental responsibility. Thatseems to be possible.

In the study that was put forward, theforesight report, Australia’s Antarctic pro-gram beyond 2000: a framework for the fu-ture, a recommendation was made for a mixof sea and air transport. The government atthe time responded that in cooperation withthe Tasmanian government the Howard gov-ernment would pursue efforts to further de-velop the role of Hobart as a gateway to Ant-arctica. Unfortunately, that commitment doesnot seem to have been followed through.There seems to have been an entirely politi-cal campaign, for reasons which I find diffi-cult to understand, to make Albany thejumping off departure point for servicingAustralian Antarctic Territory by air.

I took the occasion, as did the Premier ofTasmania, to write to Senator Hill. I havealso had meetings with all of my Tasmanian

federal Labor colleagues, and I speak ontheir behalf in raising this issue in the Housetoday. Every single Tasmanian Labor mem-ber—all five members of the House of Rep-resentatives and our senators—is extremelyconcerned that the possibility now seems tohave substantially opened and that the com-mitment of government after government ofdifferent political persuasions, both at a fed-eral level and a state level, may be starting tobe unravelled by a decision that would en-able consideration to be given of Albany asan alternative service point for AustralianAntarctic ventures.

Not only is Hobart the closest point toAntarctica; its flying time would also be sig-nificantly shorter—some 28 minutes fasteron a return leg from Australia—but all that isdetail. The bottom line is: to walk away fromHobart as a commitment where we are cen-tralising Australia’s Antarctic efforts wouldundermine the work of some 25 years ofparties of all political persuasions at a na-tional level and at a state level. None hasbeen more passionately committed to Hobartas the centre of Australia’s Antarctic effortsthan the current Bacon government. It hasworked very hard and passionately and pub-licly to persuade Minister Hill to move awayfrom what seems to be a very wrong ap-proach of leaving this question open, but sotoo did previous Tasmanian governments ofother persuasions under Liberal premiers. Allhave been passionate in holding out Tasma-nia as being the appropriate place for allAustralian Antarctic commitments and as thepoint which transport operations would workfrom.

As a result of what has occurred, I havebeen advised, the Australian Antarctic Divi-sion recently announced that eight compa-nies had been selected to bid for the air linkproject. The project will be divided into twoelements. The first is that between the Aus-tralian community, which I hope of coursewill be Hobart, and the Casey station. Thesecond element deals with the provision ofan intracontinental air service between Caseystation and other Antarctic bases. Eight com-panies have been invited to tender, includingJet Air Cargo of Queensland, Kenn BorekAir of Canada, National Jet Systems of


South Australia, Polar Logistics of NewSouth Wales, Sinclair Knight Merz of Tas-mania, SkyTraders of New South Wales,Raytheon Australia of the ACT and Ma-roomba Airlines of Western Australia. Tend-ers are to close on 21 September 2001, with arecommendation to go to the minister,Senator Hill, in November of 2001.

The pity is that the minister has not simplytaken the opportunity, which every otherAustralian government hitherto would havedone, to make it absolutely plain at thestarting point that the departure point fromAustralia to Antarctic territory for the pur-pose of these tenders would be Hobart. Thatwould have been consistent with the ap-proach of previous conservative governmentsas well as previous Labor administrations. Iregret very much that this has been left insuch limbo. It smacks to me of cheap politicsand, worse, it seems to me to envisage a sub-stantial waste of community time and re-sources as tenderers go through a processwhich ought be resolved in the end on thebasis of the massive advantages and the ac-crued infrastructure that is in place in Hobart.That outcome should have been a precondi-tion of this tender process.

In conclusion, I should mention one thingabout one of my predecessors MichaelHodgman, whom I mentioned before, be-cause both he and his brother have cam-paigned hard for Hobart as a base for Ant-arctic services. Michael now returns to theTasmanian parliament. After losing the elec-tion, he will be returning on a count back. Ithink his decision to do so was fortified afterhis likely opponent Steve Mav on the countback called Michael Hodgman an ex-politician who had run his race. Anyone whoknows Michael would know that that was anentirely inappropriate way to persuade himand to encourage him to be gracious and re-move himself from the political environment.

Whatever the case is, this is an area inwhich we have all had a common interest—every Tasmanian Labor member shares mystrong views. My colleague Harry Quick inFranklin, who has a direct responsibility forthe Franklin electorate where the AntarcticDivision is based; me, with the universityand all those services associated with the

other Antarctic centres; my colleague DickAdams, who is passionate about this; themember for Bass and the member for Brad-don all share this common passion. (Timeexpired)

Sydney: CrimeMr BAIRD (Cook) (5.22 p.m.)—Late one

afternoon last week—at 10 minutes pastseven—I was crossing Elizabeth Street nearthe Tattersalls Club in Sydney and heard aloud crash behind me. I looked around tofind out what the occurrence was and noticedthat a car window was being smashed. Ayoung guy had his hand through the windowand was picking a handbag out of the car. Heput it casually over his shoulder and thenproceeded to walk down the street. As Ichallenged him, he retorted and acted verycasually as if this was a standard matter. Youonly have to walk around the streets aroundHyde Park or St Mary’s to find that thestreets are littered with glass. This is a dailyoccurrence. I actually saw it with my owneyes one week ago in the middle of Sydney,when people were walking up and downElizabeth Street.

There is no doubt that crime in Sydneyhas got out of control. We have a policeminister who has just spent the last monthsipping chardonnay in Tuscany. We have ahighly paid chief police officer being paid at$450,000 a year who does not even bother toattend parliamentary inquiries such as theone on the crime situation in Cabramatta—asituation which has got out of control withdrugs being freely distributed on the street.He said, ‘My staff must have let me down.’Of course, that is Mr Ryan’s problem. I wasone of the people who welcomed him whenhe arrived in Sydney and thought, given histrack record in the UK, that he would dogreat things for policing in New SouthWales, but he has been a disappointment. Hehas been concerned too much with his ownmedia image and not enough with fixing thereal problem. Can you imagine being calledin front of a parliamentary inquiry on polic-ing in Cabramatta, somehow managing toforget it and then blaming your staff? Whenthe pressure is on in his own police force,instead of standing by his men, he just sim-ply moves them out. The photo on the front


page of the Daily Telegraph the other dayshowed that, of the senior people in the po-lice force who were there when he came inas police commissioner, very few are stillthere.

I think it is about time he reviewed thesituation of his job and also of the way thatthe whole surveillance of crime is being car-ried out in Sydney and within New SouthWales. In fact, on that particular afternoonlast week when I saw the window beingsmashed, I looked along the street to see ifthere were any police around and of coursethere were not. You have to go a long way tofind a police station or to find police regu-larly on the beat. There is no attempt to ad-dress the situation. With new police camerasbeing put into place, motorists are beingslugged daily, but we do not see this moneybeing returned in the form of the extra po-licing that we need in the suburbs and in thecity of Sydney for international visitors whocome here. Unless we take action, we aregoing to have some serious problems in thiscountry.

Crime rates in Sydney are soaring. Onemonth ago Dr Don Weatherburn, the Direc-tor of the New South Wales Bureau of CrimeStatistics and Research, released a summaryof the crime trends covering the precedingtwo years. His study highlighted the follow-ing problems: 11 types of offences have sig-nificantly jumped in incidence, five haveremained stable and none have dropped. Hismajor concern was that robbery with aweapon other than a firearm was up by al-most 15 per cent. Muggings were up by 13.2per cent and all categories of assault were upby seven per cent. As a further illustration, ifyou compare New South Wales with Victo-ria—even though there is a larger populationin New South Wales—New South Wales had68,714 assault victims in 2000; Victoria hadonly 16,541. So that is a huge difference.New South Wales had 13,325 robbery vic-tims in 2000; Victoria had only 3,326. Whyis there a difference? Why has crime in NewSouth Wales got out of control and who isthe minister responsible? The two most sen-ior people responsible in the New SouthWales parliament were in Europe doing theirown summer sojourn through the vignerons

of Europe, instead of addressing these prob-lems that we find in New South Wales.

In my own area, the Sutherland Shire, sig-nificant increases have occurred. Thefts frommotor vehicles have gone up from 2,082 in1999 to 2,418 in 2000. Break and enters havegone up from 1,755 in 1999 to 2,098 lastyear. General weapons offences were up to190 from 170—still an unacceptably highlevel. Recently in Cronulla, the suburb inwhich I live, we had gangs firing guns at oneand other across from the railway station intothe park. You can see in one of the windowsof the railway station the indent of a bulletthat was fired into the glass.

In today’s Daily Telegraph the heading onthe front page reads ‘Gangland: The crisisSydney’s community leaders are too timid toconfront’. On the weekend in the Sun-Heraldwe had headlines such as ‘Police say theycan’t cope as thieves run rampant’ and ‘Whypolice are losing the fight’. Police stationsare being amalgamated at a cost to the com-munity. In my own area, Miranda and Cro-nulla were amalgamated. The result is that,when serious crime is committed in Cronullabetween the various gangs that come to thearea, the police station in Cronulla that usedto have 48 officers before the Carr govern-ment took office in 1997 now has only anadministrative centre that is staffed by a con-stable at the front desk and there are nocharging facilities. There are some othernon-uniformed detectives present, but thestation has no mobile response unit and isnot there to respond to local issues as theyarise. I spoke to the superintendent—andthey are just about to get yet another super-intendent—and he said, ‘We do not have aserious crime problem.’ I asked, ‘We don’thave a serious crime problem when gangsare firing guns at one another across the mainstreet?’ And he said, ‘These are isolated in-cidents.’ They are certainly not as far as thecommunity is concerned. The community isextremely concerned and people have raisedit many times with me.

People live in the Sutherland Shire be-cause they regard it as a very pleasant area—it is close to the Georges River, to PortHacking and to beaches—but the one bigconcern they have is the increasing level of


crime. This issue certainly has dominatedlocal newspapers and conversations. Themember for Cronulla, Malcolm Kerr, hasraised it several times. It is interesting thatneither Commissioner Ryan nor the policeminister has visited this area. I have beenlooking back and I cannot find any record ofeither gentleman having visited the Suther-land Shire, which has some 240,000 people,to look at the situation and to listen to peo-ple’s concerns on this very important issue.

I am not sure what Commissioner PeterRyan does with his $450,000, but he cer-tainly does not use it to visit my area. He didnot take the time until very recently, after themedia were on to him, to go to Cabramatta tolook at the very serious problems there. Lethim come into the city of Sydney and seewhat is happening every day; let him seehow people’s cars are being broken into. Weheard police officers on 60 Minutes last nighttalk about the poor morale in the policeforce, about the lack of backup from thecommissioner and about the lack of backupfrom the government. People want to be sup-ported when it comes to being affected bycrime. They are concerned. These figuresshow that it is not just some myth or para-noia in the community; these figures arebased on real situations and real fears. Thefigures for resignations tendered by policeofficers who are new to the job are that 20per cent are from probationary constablesand 30 per cent are from constables withonly one or two years service.

On 11 February this year, the Director ofPolice Human Resources admitted that 750senior police officers are on long-term sickleave—750 officers on leave with stress-related illnesses. The community does notwant any more excuses. It does not want anymore empty promises or Tuscan holidays attimes of crisis. We want to see police on thebeat; we want to see them patrolling ourstreets; we want to see police back in thepolice stations within my own area andwithin the city of Sydney. We also want tosee support from the police commissioner forthe police officers out there on the job and onthe beat, because the level of distress andsick leave occurring among police officersindicates that they are not getting the type of

support they want. I believe it is appropriatethat the Premier, the police commissionerand the minister take this into account. (Timeexpired)Defence Headquarters Australian Theatre

Nursing HomesMr ALLAN MORRIS (Newcastle) (5.32

p.m.)—This afternoon I want to raise a cou-ple of matters, and the first is to comment onthe farcical situation of the announcement bythe minister that the Defence HeadquartersAustralian Theatre command be relocatedin—and I think this was the precise termi-nology—the Queanbeyan region. The mem-ber for Eden-Monaro made some remarksabout that this afternoon, and he made themin high dudgeon. This proposal is either avery nasty fraud upon the people of Quean-beyan or total dishonesty from the Com-monwealth government. In my time in thisplace I have never ever heard a decision byDefence about locating a facility without thatfacility first being precisely itemised.

After years of examination of this par-ticular project, the facility could be locatedanywhere within, I suppose, 30 miles of theQueanbeyan region. It is farcical to suggestthat Defence would go through this processwithout having particular sites organised,itemised and costed, and the options taken ifneed be—to do otherwise would be irrespon-sible. There is a budget for this; they do notjust have an open chequebook to spendwhatever they like. A budget has been pro-vided for quite some time. So the suggestionthat the headquarters is going to a regionrather than to a location is nonsensical un-less, of course, it is going to HMAS Harman,which means it is going to the ACT. If that isthe case, why doesn’t the minister just sayso? Why doesn’t he just say that it is goingto Harman, which is near Queanbeyan? Thatat least would be a bit honest. It would meanthat the member for Eden-Monaro could notclaim that this project is going to his elector-ate, but if he is so supportive of it being onone side of the line or the other it would notmatter. Furthermore, the suggestion that thisfacility will not be co-located but locatedindependently, duplicating a lot of infra-structure, resources, security and a whole


range of other things that Defence installa-tions need, is questionable.

Either one of two things will happen: ifthis government retains office after the nextelection it will announce that the headquar-ters will be at Harman, which, after all, is inthe Queanbeyan region—it did not quite saythe Eden-Monaro electorate precisely, so thatfalls within their area of fuzziness; or, alter-natively, the defence department will under-take a thorough review to establish the costof alternative locations, other than Harman,within the Eden-Monaro electorate. If that isthe case, Defence will automatically have toreview every other location as well, becausethe government of the day will need to havecost comparisons between one location andanother. So, either way, the facility will notbe going to Eden-Monaro precisely, as wassuggested by both the member and the min-ister, and they should come clean. The gov-ernment should come clean with the peopleof Queanbeyan and the taxpayers of Austra-lia and outline just what it is actually up to.This dishonesty in relation to Defence is in-tolerable. Defence is a delicate and importantarea and to treat it with such disdain, as thisminister and the member for Eden-Monarohave, is not just insulting; it is outright dam-aging. The credibility of the defence forces isbeing torn asunder by a minister who putspolitical game playing way ahead of everyother issue.

The other matter I want to raise is in rela-tion to the earlier debate in the chamberabout nursing homes. As members will beaware, the Catholic Care for the Aged or-ganisation has announced the closure of StCatherine’s of Siena nursing home atWaratah, in the electorate of Newcastle. Thisis an absolute tragedy; it is a disaster ofenormous magnitude. It is the tip of a verybig iceberg. What has happened in this areahas been so dishonest. Mr Acting DeputySpeaker Andrews, you and the member forDunkley spoke in this debate and, quitefrankly, I was appalled at the lack of honestyfrom both of you in terms of what you putforward.

Let us go back to 1996. I remind thoseopposite that this government cut half a bil-lion dollars from nursing home care over

four years. Half a billion dollars was takenfrom one budget over four years. Since thenthere has been disaster after disaster, she-mozzle after shemozzle. The governmentannounced the introduction of residentbonds, which meant that money could beraised from residents coming into nursinghomes. Some nursing homes, including StCatherine’s, made some judgments abouttheir future based on that policy. That policywas then changed, and the government an-nounced that it was going to pay $12 a daytowards capital costs. Quite frankly, mem-bers of the government, this is not working.There is now a build-up of enormous mag-nitude across the country; it is not just in anyone nursing home or organisation. I expectthat more than one nursing home closure willbe announced before the election. I will beinterested to see what the member forDunkley and the member for Menzies willsay then about how this is somehow differentand that somehow it is the Labor Party’sfault five years on.

The fact is that there are fewer profes-sional staff working in nursing homes thanever before. The government should recallwhat it did to help compound the situation.When Labor were in government, nursinghomes had to account for how money pro-vided by the Commonwealth was spent. Thatwas how we tried to make sure that it wentinto care for residents and not into other ac-tivities. That requirement was removed bythis government. It removed the need fornursing homes to justify its expenditure. Itthen removed the need to have nurses atnursing homes. Nowadays many nursinghomes only have nurses part-time. For a sub-stantial part of the day, there is not a quali-fied nurse on duty in the building at all. Thatis how nursing homes are coping with thecost squeeze: they are being forced to cutcosts. Nursing homes, in many cases, arereducing the level of care at the very sametime that occupancy times are increasing.

Nursing homes now have higher andhigher needs, particularly with the increasein dementia. Nursing home residents areliving longer in nursing homes and need ahigher level of care. At the same time, thegovernment has reduced the ability to care.


In so many cases, nurses are no longer there.Catholic Care for the Aged in Newcastledetermined that it would not go down thatpath—that it would not reduce its level ofcare—which meant the nursing home be-came non-viable.

Let me quote a few things that have beenput forward to make sure that people under-stand the details of this. Firstly, the ministermade big of the claim that St Catherine’s hadreceived a 54 per cent increase in fundingover the last four or five years. That is cor-rect, but let me tell the House where it went.Thirty-one per cent of that went to 16 extrabeds; in other words, the home was expandedin 1997. Increased insurance cost six percent. Superannuation costs increased by threeper cent and award increases were 14 percent. That is 54 per cent gone. There is noallowance for increased food costs or anyother associated costs.

Let us look at the budget for St Cather-ine’s for the last two years. From theirbudget projection for 2000-01, the govern-ment subsidy was going to be $2,451,000.From the projected budget for 2001-02, thegovernment subsidy will be $2,303,000—inother words, a drop of $150,000 this yearcompared with last year. That is a reductionin funds. It is not an increase in funds; it is areduction.

Look back to 1997 and those wonderfulreforms we have heard about. Firstly, thegovernment cut out capital funding; sec-ondly, it took nurses away from nursinghomes; and, thirdly, it rejigged the residentclassification table. In 1997, this governmentbrought in a rejigging of the whole classifi-cation table. It did so by putting people withbehavioural problems as those most in need.It did not increase the funding for them, butit pushed all the others down. Rather thanmaking the table bigger to absorb the de-mentia and behavioural problems—poten-tially psychogeriatric cases—it pushed theothers down. That change in 1997 cost StCatherine’s of Siena $200,000 a year in itssubsidy. Subsequent changes have cost iteven more, and add to that what is happeningnow with the reclassifications and the re-views taking place.

In this year’s budget, the government an-nounced it was appointing an extra 38 peopleto conduct further reviews. In this currentyear, it expects to conduct 24,000 reviews ofpeople living in nursing homes, which willend up as a saving to the Commonwealth of$1 million a week. The government is outthere each week knocking $1 million off therecurrent subsidies of Australia’s nursinghomes. Each week nursing homes will haveto cope with $1 million less than they had theweek before—throughout this year and theyears ahead. The disaster is not accidental. Itis government made, it is minister made, andit should be rectified. (Time expired)

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr An-drews)—Before I call the member for NewEngland, I remind the House that, while it isappropriate for any member to criticise theremarks of another member by reference tothe name of his or her electorate, it is notappropriate to directly link any criticismmade to the occupant of the chair from timeto time.

Nursing HomesRegional Airlines: New South Wales

ServicesMr St CLAIR (New England) (5.43

p.m.)—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker An-drews. I am certainly pleased that you clari-fied that situation. I was a bit taken abackwith the comments and the reference to you.I want to pick up on a couple of points madeby the previous speaker. When we came intogovernment in 1996, Australia was some10,000 nursing home places short. In thisdebate this afternoon, we should never forgetthat. I do not want to dwell on it for long, butthe issue needs to be continually brought upso the Australian public can look back atwhat 13 years of Labor did do to this coun-try, and in particular to the care for our agedpopulation.

This government brought in a system ofaccreditation for our aged care facilities.That accreditation process has been widelyembraced and warmly welcomed by thoseproviders of aged care facilities in my elec-torate of New England. Accreditation startsto sort out the wheat from the chaff. Thenumber of places that we have funded and


that are under construction at the moment isa great credit to this government and par-ticularly to this minister.

The philosophy of keeping people in theirhomes and providing them with the propercare, attention, service and nursing that wecan have in the home today is certainly amajor step forward. As I get around myelectorate and talk to many of our olderAustralians and senior citizens, they haveexpressed to me a very strong desire andwish to stay in their homes where possible.They find that more advantageous and moreacceptable than being shipped off to somehome where they do not want to be.

I will finish on the subject of nursinghomes by talking about aged care facilitiesand by again looking at my electorate ofNew England and the places that we havebeen able to add to our aged care facilities.We have another 30 places going into thetown of Tenterfield, to add to the 36 placesin their aged care facility there. This makes ita 66-bed aged care facility, providing tre-mendous service and quality of care to thepeople of Tenterfield and surrounding dis-tricts. The sods on that greenfield site havealready been turned and the work is beingdone, and we are looking forward to thecompletion.

I would also say on the question of agedcare facilities that, due to the flexibility ofthe system we run in government of deliver-ing quality aged care services, we have beenable to provide the shire of Uralla, which hasa wonderful aged care facility, McMaughGardens, with 22 aged care facility beds, 11of which are going to be placed in the small,remote community of Bundarra in an oldhospital that has been beautifully refur-bished. The community there is very muchappreciative of our minister’s understandingof the importance of keeping our senior citi-zens and our older Australians in our towns.I might say the same thing with regard tomultipurpose services, which are also start-ing to come around in country Australia, incountry New South Wales and in my elector-ate of New England. What concerns megreatly is the contempt with which the NewSouth Wales Carr Labor government dealswith communities in its discussions with the

aged care people and with the communitiesin general.

The topic that I particularly wanted toraise was in relation to regional airlines inNew South Wales. A New South Wales air-lines working group summit was calledabout two months ago in response to a num-ber of regional airline services being closedor shut down. In my electorate of New Eng-land I have four major airports: one in Tam-worth, one in Armidale—serviced very wellby Qantas Link and Hazelton—and two oth-ers in Glen Innes and Inverell. There hasbeen some discussion on the removal ofsome services to both those ports.

I want to talk about a number of issuesthat were dealt with by the New South Walesregional airlines summit working group,which was to make a submission to the airworking group of the Australian TransportCouncil. At the end of the day, I, as a mem-ber of that summit committee, refused toendorse the submission that was sent for-ward, and there were a number of reasons forthat: one, because I care deeply about thelevel of air services received into the re-gional towns in my electorate of New Eng-land; and, two, because I do not believe thatthe working group had an opportunity toreally look at the total of the financial pres-sures that relate to regional airlines. Thereseemed to continually be a narrow focuspurely on the cost pressures.

A number of things should be said withregard to that submission. One of the factorsthat really needs to be continually looked atin regional New South Wales is the loadfactor. A study by the Australian AviationInsurance Group for the Regional AirlinesAssociation of Australia into the status ofregional airlines in Australia provides goodinformation on the overall Australian re-gional airline industry. Initial informationfrom AV stats indicates that load factorshave, in fact, increased for New South Walesregional airline traffic from 58.6 per cent in1995 to 61.6 per cent in 2000. The averagefigure for those smaller routes—in otherwords, those with a population of fewer than20,000—is 58.2 per cent. However, the aver-age conceals an enormous variation in per-formance of the regional airlines. As I


pointed out at the summit, some regionalairlines have been performing extremelybadly, with load factors of around 30 percent. Of course, what they need to do is en-sure that people use these airlines. Just afterthe presentation of the submission to thestate minister for transport, the ministermade the gesture of removing landing fees tothe tune of $50,000. This was not $50,000per airline. This was not $50,000 per airroute. It was not even $50,000 per airport. Itwas $50,000 to all regional airlines that op-erate in New South Wales.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! The time for the grievance debate hasexpired. The debate is interrupted and I putthe question:

That grievances be noted.

Question resolved in the affirmative.BUSINESS

Motion (by Ms Worth) agreed to:That Main Committee orders of the day Nos 4

and 5, government business, be returned to theHouse for further consideration.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—The matters will be set down for considera-tion at a later hour this day.

ASSENT TO BILLSMessages from the Governor-General re-

ported informing the House of assent to thefollowing bills:

Corporations Bill 2001Australian Securities and Investments Com-

mission Bill 2001Corporations (Fees) Bill 2001Corporations (Futures Organisations Levies)

Bill 2001Corporations (National Guarantee Fund Lev-

ies) Bill 2001Corporations (Repeals, Consequentials and

Transitionals) Bill 2001Corporations (Securities Exchanges Levies)

Bill 2001Governor-General Legislation Amendment

Bill 2001Migration Legislation Amendment (Electronic

Transactions and Methods of Notification) Bill2001

Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2)2001

Export Market Development Grants Amend-ment Bill 2001

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Super-annuation) Bill 2001

Primary Industries and Energy Research andDevelopment Amendment Bill 2001

Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2001-2002Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments)

Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001Dried Vine Fruits (Rate of Primary Industry

(Customs) Charge) Validation Bill 2001Dried Vine Fruits (Rate of Primary Industry

(Excise) Levy) Validation Bill 2001Family and Community Services Legislation

(Simplification and Other Measures) Bill 2001Social Security Legislation Amendment (Con-

cession Cards) Bill 2000Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001Appropriation (HIH Assistance) Bill 2001Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill

2001New Business Tax System (Capital Allow-

ances) Bill 2001New Business Tax System (Capital Allow-

ances—Transitional and Consequential) Bill 2001New Business Tax System (Simplified Tax

System) Bill 2001Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill

2001Australia New Zealand Food Authority

Amendment Bill 2001Environment Protection and Biodiversity Con-

servation Amendment (Wildlife Protection) Bill2001

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legis-lation Amendment Bill 2001

Interactive Gambling Bill 2001Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigra-

tion Detainees) Bill 2001Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill

2001Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation

Amendment Bill 2001Vocational Education and Training Funding

Amendment Bill 2001


Taxation Laws Amendment (SuperannuationContributions) Bill 2001

Import Processing Charges Bill 2001

Customs Depot Licensing Charges Amend-ment Bill 2001

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill(No. 2) 2001

Health Legislation Amendment (MedicalPractitioners’ Qualifications and Other Measures)Bill 2001

Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Sup-plementary Assistance) Bill 2001

Customs Legislation Amendment and Repeal(International Trade Modernisation) Bill 2001

AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND FOODAUTHORITY AMENDMENT BILL 2001

Consideration of Senate MessageMessage received from the Senate return-

ing the bill and acquainting the House thatthe Senate agrees to the amendments madeby the House.

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ANDBIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION

AMENDMENT (WILDLIFEPROTECTION) BILL 2001

Consideration of Senate MessageMessage received from the Senate return-

ing the bill and acquainting the House thatthe Senate agrees to the amendments madeby the House.

TAXATION LAWS AMENDMENT(SUPERANNUATION

CONTRIBUTIONS) BILL 2000Consideration of Senate Message

Message received from the Senate return-ing the bill and acquainting the House thatthe Senate does not insist on its amendmentsdisagreed to by the House.

BILLS RETURNED FROM THESENATE

The following bills were returned from theSenate without amendment or request:

Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill2001

Migration Legislation Amendment (Applica-tion of Criminal Code) Bill 2001

SUPERANNUATION CONTRIBUTIONSTAXES AND TERMINATION

PAYMENTS TAX LEGISLATIONAMENDMENT BILL 2001

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 21 June, on motion

by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr KELVIN THOMSON (Wills) (5.54p.m.)— The Superannuation ContributionsTaxes and Termination Payments Tax Legis-lation Amendment Bill 2001 is designed toimprove the equity of the termination pay-ments surcharge and superannuation contri-butions surcharge legislation. It makes per-manent the transitional provisions that haveapplied since 20 August 1996. These aremeasures which were announced in thebudget on 22 May this year.

The bill will ensure that only the post 20August 1996 amount of an employer eligibletermination payment taken as cash will betaken into account for the surcharge. Thisreverses the current situation that makes allof the retained amount of an employer eligi-ble termination payment—including amountsrelating to pre-20 August 1996 service—ac-countable for the surcharge. This particularprovision has been roundly criticised as be-ing inequitable, including in the AustralianFinancial Review on 31 March this year.

The bill also provides that only a notionalamount of an employer eligible terminationpayment is included in the calculation of theemployee’s adjusted taxable income for sur-charge purposes. This will benefit employeesor former employees who would not nor-mally be subject to the surcharge but couldbecome liable to pay the surcharge in a givenyear as a consequence of receiving an em-ployer eligible termination payment.

The bill will also ensure that employeeswill not have to pay an effective tax ratehigher than the top marginal tax rate plus theMedicare levy when taking their ETP ascash. Currently, some people may face ahigher effective tax rate due to the interac-tion of the termination payment surchargeand the reasonable benefit limits provisions.In terms of impact on Commonwealth reve-nue, according to the explanatory memoran-


dum, the estimated cost to revenue is $14million in 2001-02, $21 million in 2002-03,$17 million in 2003-04 and $21 million in2004-05.

The opposition will be supporting thislegislation. Indeed, it reflects measureswhich the opposition have been calling forand matters which we opposed at the timethe surcharge legislation was introduced. Theopposition drew these matters to the gov-ernment’s attention back then as anomaliesand it has taken them until now to comearound.

The termination payments surcharge cameinto effect on 20 August 1996. It is imposedon what might be described as golden hand-shakes paid on termination of employment ofso-called high income earners. Terminationpayments are the retained amounts—that is,amounts not rolled over or transferred into asuperannuation fund—of eligible terminationpayments made by employers on the termi-nation of employment of an employee. Thesurcharge is payable only if the taxpayer’sadjusted taxable income for the financialyear in question exceeds the surchargethreshold. For example, for this financialyear, 2001-02, it is imposed at the rate of oneper cent for each $1,219 of assessable in-come where a member’s assessable incomeand superannuation contributions exceed$85,242. The maximum surcharge is 15 percent, and that maximum is reached whenassessable income and superannuation con-tributions reach $103,507.

The government announced in the 1996-97 budget that a surcharge would apply tocontributions that are subject to a tax deduc-tion—including employer contributions andthose made by the members where there isno employer contribution and the deductionhas been claimed—where the assessable in-come and superannuation contributions ex-ceeded $70,000. That has since been indexedto the amounts that I just outlined. Since1999-2000, the so-called reportable fringebenefits of an employee are taken into ac-count in working out superannuation sur-charge liabilities.

The government introduced a transitionperiod, which was scheduled to expire at thestart of July. Following the expiry of the

transition period, all of the termination pay-ments accrued after 30 June 1983—evenentitlements accrued prior to the introductionof the surcharge legislation—were to besubject to the surcharge. The surcharge itselfhas received a great deal of criticism, butsome of these measures have attracted par-ticular criticism. The termination paymentssurcharge and the superannuation contribu-tions surcharge were examined in the 23rdreport of the former Senate Select Committeeon Superannuation, Superannuation Sur-charge Legislation, which sets out in verycomprehensive detail many of the concernsthat have been raised.

One of those concerns is a question of in-equities in the transitional provisions for thetermination payments surcharge. The defini-tion of assessable income includes termina-tion payments or golden handshakes. Butinclusion of termination payments can resultin lower income persons—not simply highincome people—being liable for the sur-charge. Somebody who loses their job andreceives a redundancy payment can findthemself in this category where the redun-dancy payment is included in their adjustedtaxable income for the year in question as ifit were income for one year only, and there-fore it can put that person in the surchargecategory.

Despite the government having been madeaware of these sorts of problems through theSenate Select Committee on Superannuationinquiry into the original surcharge legisla-tion, it has taken these past four years forsome of these issues to be addressed. Wewere going to face the situation where thefull 15 per cent super surcharge would applyto most substantial taxable separation pay-ments, so that before the age of 55 normalunfunded super tax of 31.5 per cent for post-1983 benefits and the 15 per cent sur-charge—a total of 46.5 per cent tax—wouldapply on taxable separation payments. Thatwould have seen thousands of taxpayers be-ing unfairly caught in the surcharge net afterreceiving large termination payments. Oftenthose termination payments were received onretrenchment.

There is no doubt that the superannuationcontributions and the termination payments


surcharge have become important sources ofrevenue for this government since it intro-duced them. In 1999-2000 surcharge collec-tions alone amounted to $577 million. Sena-tor Sherry indicated to me that in the latestbudget papers the surcharge collectionamount has been hidden and it is no longerpossible to identify what the surcharge col-lection yields for the government. It has sim-ply been hidden in superannuation contribu-tions and taxes more generally. I am indebtedto the Department of the Parliamentary Li-brary’s Information and Research Servicesfor their comment:... the history of the superannuation contributionsand termination payments surcharge now appearsto have gone full circle in a rather “Kafka-esque”manner.

I think that they have put it more boldly thanthe Parliamentary Library usually put thesethings, but they have put it very accurately. Ido not think that I can improve on that. Theycontinue:These surcharges were introduced as “equitymeasures” to make the level of superannuationtaxation concessions available to high incomeearners more comparable to those available tomiddle and lower income earners. On the brink ofthe expiration of the transitional provisions, thesurcharge legislation is being amended to remove“the most inequitable provisions of tax law” thatcould potentially and unfairly (but legally) catchtaxpayers in the surcharge net after receivinglarge termination payments, ...

They go on:... the surcharge legislation remains on the statutebooks. Many of the witnesses to the 23rd reportof the former Senate Select Committee on Super-annuation provisions will still be dealing with thecomplex administration, clumsy assessment pro-cedures and on-going administration costs that areborne not just by the high income earners, but byall superannuation fund members.

As I said, these were not my words, but Icould not put it better myself.

In relation to this express issue before theHouse, the sort of situation that arose is theexample of the bus driver with the BrisbaneCity Council—I do not have the express de-tails in front of me—who received a prettymodest amount of about $17 an hour in pay.Over the course of 22 years he had built upin his superannuation account some

$70,000—and people who know a bit aboutsuperannuation will know that $70,000 over22 years is not much and will not take youvery far. On the closure of that defined bene-fit fund that he was a member of and the es-tablishment of an accumulation fund in itsplace, he and other members rolled over theirmoney into that new accumulation fund, andthat $70,000 was included in his taxable in-come for the year in question. The tax officesaid, ‘Thank you very much. We will have$10,000 of that by way of superannuationsurcharge.’ That sort of anomaly has reallybeen a most unfortunate issue with this sur-charge, which was claimed to be an equitablemeasure and something which impacts onhigh income earners.

I want to indicate to the government that,while we will support it, Labor’s view is thatthis measure certainly does not fix all theanomalies associated with the superannua-tion surcharge. One of the anomalies hasbeen the subject of reports recently in theFinancial Review in particular, and it is onewhich has been brought forward by the Aus-tralian and International Pilots Associationwho have done a submission to the Produc-tivity Commission on the surcharge tax leg-islation. Their particular concern relates tothe way in which members of certain definedbenefit superannuation schemes are sub-jected to the surcharge tax. In their submis-sion to the Productivity Commission theysay:Existing legislation unintentionally confers abenefit on business at the expense of the membersof those funds. Currently, if a fund chooses toimplement a surcharge debit offset account toadminister the superannuation surcharge tax, aninequity can arise because of the difference be-tween the interest rates applied to a member’sbenefit and the rates applied to the member’s sur-charge tax liability.

So you have a situation where your superan-nuation benefits are accruing—and in a de-fined benefit fund they accrue in a certainway—but you also have a liability accruing,this surcharge debit offset account, whichcan have a different rate of interest and canaccrue at a higher rate than the rate at whichyour benefit is accruing. The submissioncontinues:


This inequity results because the surcharge tax isin effect borrowed by the super fund, from thesuper fund, in order to pay the Federal Govern-ment tax. The capital and interest on the loan ischarged to an account in the member’s name andcompounds whilst a member remains in the fund.The compounded amount is then subtracted fromthe final benefit upon the member’s retirementfrom the fund.

So, according to the pilots association, for amember having around 30 years membershipin the fund, a three per cent gap between thecredited earnings rate and salary inflationrate results in a reduction of around 13 percent of the final benefit. They say:Applying credited earnings rate to surcharge off-set accounts is always detrimental. Despite theabsence of express legislative authority, surchargeoffset accounts are used by some corporateschemes as a result of discretion given to trusteesby the trust deeds of their respective funds. Insuch cases, actuarial opinion varies widely as tothe correct rate of interest to be applied.

I have to say that this is a problem in the waythat the surcharge is to be calculated for de-fined benefit funds, full stop, because there isa legitimate argument as to how you cor-rectly calculate the employer contribution inthe cases of these defined benefit funds.

The advice obtained by the pilots associa-tion consistently confirms that the use of thecredited earnings rate of interest will be det-rimental in the long run to fund members,irrespective of members’ years of service,when compared to either the actuarially as-sumed salary inflation rate or the 10-yearlong-term bond rate that is used for publicsector unfunded defined benefit schemes.Their submission says that they have re-ceived advice from Senator Kemp, the As-sistant Treasurer, that there is no need for thetrustees to adopt the practice of establishingdebt accounts for affected members. Never-theless, this is occurring and the pilots asso-ciation believe that the legislation has ineq-uitable consequences for fully funded de-fined benefit members.

It is clear that the federal government’slegislation intends that the funds should re-coup the tax from the members’ accounts—there is no argument about that—but,because of the many different types of fundscovered by the surcharge act, the decision bysome trustees to use surcharge debit accounts

trustees to use surcharge debit accounts forfully funded schemes when that method isonly expressly authorised for unfundedschemes has resulted in significant issues forfully funded defined benefit members. Thatproblem is even more exaggerated when in-appropriate interest rates are used.

So there are some serious questions thathave been raised here, and I understand thatthe same sorts of issues arise in relation toother schemes as well, such as those ofjudges. It is possible that the amounts thatthey have their accounts reduced by can ex-ceed even the 15 per cent of the surcharge,much less take into account the fact that theywere entitled to benefits that had accruedduring the years—and, in some cases, themany years—prior to the surcharge cominginto effect.

The other anomaly that I want to mentionto the House goes to the way in which thesurcharge is calculated on shift workers.People who work in mines and various typesof employment have their superannuationguarantee entitlements, the amount of super-annuation money they are being paid, calcu-lated on a base rate of pay but have theresuperannuation surcharge calculated on atotal rate of pay. So people are receiving thesuperannuation guarantee on a lower rate ofsalary but are having to pay the surchargethat is calculated on a higher rate of salary.

A case of this kind was drawn to my at-tention recently by the member for Charlton,Kelly Hoare, which involves shift workers atthe Eraring power station. They are entitledto the employee’s base wage and have super-annuation guarantee payments based on that.When they are assessing income, they havethe base salary plus 20 per cent allowances,so their income is well below the superannu-ation surcharge levy lower limit. But the taxoffice applies the superannuation surchargelevy to the state government employee’s basewage plus actual allowances of 37.7 per centplus employer superannuation contributions,which puts the income above the superannu-ation surcharge levy upper limit. You canunderstand that a worker in a situation likethat—where their entitlements are calculatedon one salary but their taxation liabilities arecalculated on a different salary—would be


pretty unimpressed. I have come across anumber of examples of that kind in the pastfew years, and I suggest to the governmentthat these situations represent further sur-charge anomalies which it ought to be pre-pared to examine.

Having regard to these sorts of anomalies,Labor has indicated that we intend to have areview of superannuation. This governmenthas no vision in relation to superannuation.By contrast, Labor in office built up super-annuation from $40 billion back in 1983 to$500 billion now. We are prepared to look atsome of these issues. We note the attempt bythe government to mount a scare campaignbased on misinformation in relation to super-annuation. It is absolutely untrue that Laborintends to increase the superannuation guar-antee contributions by employers; neverthe-less, the Prime Minister and the Minister forSmall Business have been endeavouring tobeat that up and continually misrepresent theopposition.

The Leader of the Opposition, the shadowTreasurer and I have all said, no, there willnot be an increase in compulsory employercontributions to superannuation. It is neces-sary to have some honesty in political debatein this country, and I think the Prime Minis-ter, the Minister for Small Business and oth-ers would do us all a favour if they ceasedand desisted from misrepresenting what wehave to say in the area of superannuation.We are concerned about superannuationanomalies. We do intend to have a review ofsuperannuation with a view to building onthe achievements of Labor in government inthis area. As I indicated at the outset, Laborwill be supporting this legislation which webelieve is some time overdue.

Mr CADMAN (Mitchell) (6.14 p.m.)—The Superannuation Contributions Taxes andTermination Payments Tax LegislationAmendment Bill 2001 is one of those piecesof legislation where I believe the governmenthas seen that change is needed and hasmoved with certainty to bring it about, andthat change is a reduction in the surcharge oncertain termination payments—that is, inregard to the termination payments surchargeand the superannuation contributions sur-charge. We have listened to the Australian

Labor Party tonight, and my colleague oppo-site has rightly said that they will not be op-posing this legislation. However, neither didthey oppose the introduction of the 15 percent surcharge on superannuation termina-tion payments when it was first introduced in1997. Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, I think youwould be aware of that measure—the so-called measure to reduce the advantage thatrecipients of very high, late payments fromsuper funds or golden handshakes had in thetax system—that was introduced by the gov-ernment to rectify that problem. Labor didnot oppose that measure; Gareth Evans, whowas the shadow Treasurer at the time, I be-lieve, did not seek to modify or change it. Inotice that a number of members of the op-position, in the speeches made at that time,all skirted around the issue but said that theythought it was reasonable at the end of theday.

I picked up today a report in the FinancialReview dated 10 May 2001, where thespokesman on these matters for the Austra-lian Labor Party indicated:Labor has been opposed to the additional 15 percent surcharge for high-income earners, and MrThomson said this new tax had been “adverse”for funds and “problematic” for investors.

I would just say that, after listening carefullyto his speech tonight, I think he ought toclarify exactly where his party stands. Hecannot make statements to the press sayingthat the Labor Party is opposed to thesemeasures and then come in here and say,‘Well, we are not opposed. We’re worriedabout some of the administration, but we arenot opposed to the measures.’ That reportcontinues that the shadow assistant Treas-urer:... also argues that it was anomalous for eligibletermination payments and rollovers for low-income people to be hit by the tax.

It is perfectly proper for him to have thatview, and that is the measure that is beingresolved here tonight. The changes that weare introducing here are well thought throughchanges, changes that are necessary andchanges that will improve the application ofthe measures by bringing into effect, beforethe time necessary, before 19 August—which I believe is the eligibility date—thetemporary measures introduced by the


rary measures introduced by the governmentnow being made permanent. Those changeswill be welcomed by everybody affected.

That article in the Financial Review of 10May, to which I have already referred, con-tinues:In criticising the Government’s approach to su-perannuation, Thomson also spelt out the reformtargets for any incoming Labor government.

“[The Howard] Government did a lot of dam-age to super through imposing the surcharge,through not proceeding with our co-contribution,by requiring over-55s to access their super beforethey can be eligible for unemployment benefits,”he says.

While these reforms would be aimed at boost-ing voluntary contribution, Labor is also sympa-thetic to increasing the compulsory contributionfrom the 9 per cent level that will take effect nextyear.

He says the evidence suggests that the pro-posed 9 per cent compulsory contribution in 2002“is still not enough”, although the issue of ade-quacy would be examined in detail by the inquiry.

That is the inquiry he has mentioned heretonight.

So both the spokesman and the Leader ofthe Opposition are saying, ‘We know it is notenough money to meet the goals to have thecompulsory level of super pegged at nine percent,’ but they trail their coat by saying,‘Well, we are not sure whether we are goingto do it; we are going to have an inquiry.’That is code for ‘we are going to do it, butwe do not want to tell you we are going to doit.’ That is exactly the system that BobHawke and Paul Keating adopted on a num-ber of occasions when they were in office tobreak the news that they were going tochange the tax system—like bringing incapital gains tax and other taxes. I notice thatthe Leader of the Opposition, in a doorstopon 2 August, said: We introduced the Superannuation Guaranteecharge that is still not quite complete. It will be at9 per cent of your income next year. It needs to bemore than that.

In the same doorstop he goes on to say:If you can get it [superannuation contributions]say to 12 to 15 per cent instead of 9 per cent ofpeople’s earnings you have solved the problem ...we are almost there at 9 per cent. Next year, we

will be almost there, we just need another three tofive on top of that.

That is as good as saying that there is goingto be an increase in compulsory super contri-butions for employers. That is an added costthat the Labor Party are not saying they aregoing to apply, but they are going to apply it.

One can go back over a series of weeks tostatements that have been made—includingstatements made by the shadow AssistantTreasurer, Kelvin Thomson, who has been inhere tonight—saying that the 15 per cent is adesirable goal. That 15 per cent is a different15 per cent to the super surcharge that we aredebating here tonight. As was indicated byMr Thomson, he would not want to see thesuper surcharge—‘and I have quoted fromthe appropriate sections of the Financial Re-view that the Labor Party was opposed to thesuper surcharge.’ Not true; absolutely untrue.The Labor Party are supporting it. They arenot going to vote against it here or in theSenate. They have always adopted that atti-tude, going right back to the day of its intro-duction. So I do not know what the Austra-lian Labor Party are expecting to achieve bytrying to play one side of the fence in a fi-nancial journal that I suppose they feel isread exclusively by magnates of some sort oranother who would be affected by the supersurcharge but not read by ordinary people.Completely untrue. It shows you how out oftouch they are with the average Australian.

It is almost universally agreed that super-annuation is too complex. But when you goto examine how you might change it it be-comes a problem; and, despite the agreementby many authorities that it is too complex,there does not seem to be any perfect plan onthe way in which you should tax superannu-ation. So the government has moved tomodify the taxation put in place by ourpredecessors, and has instigated a superan-nuation surcharge and a termination pay-ments surcharge simply to bring some moreequity into the system, to bring a balance,and to still, however, give favoured treatmentto the taxing provisions of superannuation. Ithink any financial adviser will quickly tell amember of the public that there is still sig-nificant advantage in investing in superannu-ation. The advantage is still there, the cer-


tainty is still there and the benefits are stillthere. So, despite surcharges, complexity andall the rest of it, this government has movedto clarify areas of superannuation. This leg-islation before the House tonight does thesethings.

The government has announced threemeasures relating to employer contributionsand to the surcharge. I think these measureshave been widely welcomed. The date—19August—is going to be in place so that thechanges to the transitional provisions forsurcharge on ETPs would be coming to anend and therefore the full amount of theETPs taken as cash would be surchargeablefrom 19 August. From the calculations onamounts that I have seen, that means a re-duction of something like 75 per cent in thepayments. That is a very significant reduc-tion; there is still the application of somesurcharge, but there is a significant reduc-tion. The first measure in this legislation to-night addresses this issue and ensures thatonly the post-August 1996 amount of an em-ployer contribution will be surchargeable. Itis not going back before that time, but onlytaking in the four or five years since thattime, so the averaging process applies only tothat four or five years.

The second measure in this legislation willensure that low to middle income earnerswith modest employer payments will gener-ally not be subject to surcharge. I have beengiven an example that a taxpayer who cur-rently takes an employer ETP of $90,000 ascash will have the full amount included intheir adjusted taxable income and could besubject to a surcharge of the full 15 percent—the range, as I remember it, is one to15 per cent. Under the new arrangements, ifthis taxpayer has 10 years service, only$9,000 will be included in their adjusted tax-able income. Provided other components ofadjusted taxable income are less than$72,000, this person will now pay no sur-charge. That is a release and a relief for thelower to modest and medium income earner.The final measure in this legislation will en-sure that taxpayers do not pay more than thetop marginal rate plus Medicare levy on anemployer ETP that is subject to a surcharge.

So we have here a sensible provision, an-nounced by the Assistant Treasurer back on22 May—it has been coming for that long.The legislation and amendments are in place.It will be a big improvement. It will simplifythe process and it will alleviate payment by anumber of people within the system. Makingthese changes will, of course, result in a lossof revenue for government which, if I re-member rightly, will be in the range of $17million to $21 million in a full year. It is asignificant loss of revenue. It alleviates thesituation of lower to medium income earners.A bit of additional information which I thinkis useful is that for approved early retirementschemes and bona fide redundancy pay-ments, the tax-free amount for 1999-2000 is$4,858 plus $2,429 for each completed yearof service. That is indexed for the nextyear—2000-01—to $5,062 plus $2,531 foreach completed year of service.

I commend the bill to the House. It is asensible modification made to legislation thatmany would prefer not to have, but which isa piece of equity legislation put in place by agovernment seeking to balance the opportu-nities for people, whether they be high earn-ers receiving a golden handshake or a bigsuperannuation payout or somebody who hasa small DIY fund or a small fund contributedto by their employer as they work day to day.

Mr SLIPPER (Fisher—ParliamentarySecretary to the Minister for Finance andAdministration) (6.28 p.m.)—in reply—MrDeputy Speaker, in summing up the Super-annuation Contributions Taxes and Termina-tion Payments Tax Legislation AmendmentBill 2001, I am well aware of the time and Iwill endeavour to truncate my comments.This bill introduces three measures whichwill improve the operation and fairness ofthe superannuation surcharge in relation toemployer eligible termination payments. Thegovernment is responding to concerns thathave been raised about the surcharge provi-sions, and these measures have been widelywelcomed. The government announced on22 May 2001 the measures contained in thisbill as part of the 2001-02 federal budget.

The first measure continues existing ar-rangements that are to finish on 19 Augustthis year. Without this measure, surcharge


would be payable on the full amount of atermination payment from 20 August 2001.This measure ensures that only the portion ofa termination payment received that relatesto service after 20 August 1996 will be sub-ject to the surcharge. The second measureensures that taxpayers who receive modesttermination payments and who otherwise donot have high incomes should have a reducedor no surcharge liability. This will beachieved by averaging certain terminationpayments over the individual’s period ofservice with the employer, for the purposesof determining the appropriate surchargerate. The third measure will ensure that tax-payers who receive a termination payment incash will not pay more than the top marginaltax rate plus the Medicare levy.

I do have a range of rebuttal points to thematters raised by the honourable member forWills but, bearing in mind the time allocatedfor this section of the debate is just aboutfinished, I will not proceed in a detailed re-sponse. That does not mean, of course, thatwe accept the points made by the member forWills. The measures in the bill clearly im-prove the overall equity of the terminationpayments surcharge and the superannuationcontributions surcharge legislation. I com-mend the bill to the chamber.

Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.

Third ReadingLeave granted for third reading to be

moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a

third time.Sitting suspended from 6.31 p.m. to

8.00 p.m.BILLS RETURNED FROM THE

SENATEThe following bill was returned from the

Senate without amendment or request:Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Post-

retirement Commutations) Bill 2000

THERAPEUTIC GOODSAMENDMENT (MEDICAL DEVICES)

BILL 2001Cognate bill:

THERAPEUTIC GOODS (CHARGES)AMENDMENT BILL 2001

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 29 March, on mo-

tion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (8.00 p.m.)—TheTherapeutic Goods Amendment (MedicalDevices) Bill 2001 establishes a new com-prehensive system for the regulation ofmedical devices in Australia. The Therapeu-tic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2001 isconsequential and it provides for annualcharges to be imposed in respect of medicaldevices included in the Australian Registerof Therapeutic Goods. In 1998, Australiasigned a mutual recognition agreement withthe European Community that covers a num-ber of industry sectors, including the medicaldevice sector, and permits conformity as-sessment of medical devices traded betweenAustralia and Europe to be undertaken in theexporting country. In addition, Australia hasbeen a principal member of a broader proj-ect, the Global Harmonisation Task Force formedical devices, that has used the Europeanregulatory system, which is considered to beworld’s best practice, as the basis for a globalmodel for medical device regulation. Thesystem proposed in this bill incorporateselements of the EC regulatory requirementsand will apply to medical devices that are notcovered by the EC’s system, including tam-pons and hospital and commercial gradedisinfectants.

The main provisions of this bill are: a newscheme that will be a separate chapter in theTherapeutic Goods Act 1989; the introduc-tion of a definition of ‘medical device’ in-cluding a classification scheme based on thelevel of invasiveness of the body, duration ofuse and contact with the central nervous orcirculatory system; the requirement formanufacturers to meet ‘essential principles’for safety and performance; the requirementfor manufacturers to demonstrate that appro-priate quality management procedures havebeen applied in the manufacture of a device;and flexible options for pre-market assess-ment of medical devices. It includes provi-sions for exemptions for medical devices totreat medically ill patients or importation


under the Personal Import Scheme, for spe-cial treatment or experimental purposes—that is, clinical trials—and those covered byan authorised prescriber authority. The billalso includes a wide range of post-marketmechanisms to enforce compliance withsafety and quality control standards; theadditional power to suspend medical devicesfrom the register; the introduction ofadditional offences relating to non-compliance together with penalties; and atransitional period of five years within whichmanufacturers must comply with therequirements of the new scheme.

Overall, the Therapeutic Goods Amend-ment (Medical Devices) Bill 2001 providesfor a much more comprehensive and rigoroussystem for the regulation of medical devicesthan currently exists. In addition, unlike pre-vious bills, such as the recently debatedAustralia New Zealand Food AuthorityAmendment Bill 2001, the proposed systemhas been developed in close consultationwith both industry and consumerstakeholders and it has their support. How-ever, it is disappointing to see that the Min-ister for Health and Aged Care has failed totake this opportunity to address a major con-cern raised not only by Labor but also by hisown Council for Safety and Quality inHealth Care that would see the establishmentof a registry for permanently implantabledevices. That is something that the LaborParty actively pursued publicly and in par-liament last year as a means of providingadditional public health safeguards for Aus-tralians who have had implanted devicessuch as heart pacemakers.

Labor’s efforts in this area follow the re-call in Australia in June last year of the StJude brand of heart pacemakers followingconcerns about the premature failure of thesedevices, which illustrated deficiencies in thesystem for identifying and contacting recipi-ents. As an interesting aside, St Jude is thepatron saint of desperate cases, which isprobably the way that many of those in-volved in the recall felt at the time. I under-stand that the recall has recently become thesubject of litigation by a group of patientswho were understandably distressed by theexperience.

Deficiencies in the system relating to thetracking of implanted devices were also dis-cussed as part of the inaugural meeting of theCouncil for Safety and Quality in HealthCare in February 2000. One of the areas forimmediate action identified during thatmeeting was the need to examine a system totrack implanted medical devices. In supportof this, I shall quote the media statement re-leased by the council on 18 February 2000. Itstates:Chaired by Dr Bruce Barraclough, President ofthe Australasian College of Surgeons, and sup-ported by State and Federal Health Ministers, theCouncil will provide national leadership to im-prove the safety and quality of care in hospitalsand other health settings.‘The Council has considered existing activities insafety and quality as they relate to consumers ofhealth care, looking at the diversity and breadth ofthe issues as well as the available resources andthe linkages that need to be made,’ said Dr Barra-clough.‘We have made a good start on a strategic plan forthe Council, its vision and our objectives over thenext five years, as well as identifying areas forimmediate action ...

One of those areas identified in the mediastatement for immediate action is to ‘exam-ine a system to track implanted medical de-vices’. The release goes on to state:‘This Council provides health ministers and in-deed the whole health sector, including consum-ers, with a unique opportunity to build on existingknowledge and work in the area of safety andquality to make genuine gains and implementcredible and realistic national standards ...

I understand that the council will be pursuingthe medical devices issue as a priority nextyear.

At the time of the St Jude recall, Laborcalled on the Howard government to heedthe advice of the council to institute such anexamination and to set up a registry for im-planted devices, including pacemakers. Inresponse, the minister for health, care of anice dorothy dixer, told parliament that thecurrent system was the best in the world andthat was that. Well, that is not what his ownexpert committee thinks, as evidenced bytheir initial recommendations and their con-tinued pursuit of the matter.


Again, I draw members’ attention to thecouncil’s statement, which calls for healthministers to take advantage of the opportu-nity to build on existing knowledge andwork. We may indeed have the best systemrelative to others, but it is a system that canand should be better. That is why Labor willbe moving amendments to this bill to providea legislative and regulatory framework forthe establishment of a registry for notifiableimplantable devices that will enable efficienttracking and improve recall procedures.

While the current bill provides that theSecretary of the Therapeutic Goods Admini-stration may impose conditions on the inclu-sion of a device on the Australian Register ofTherapeutic Goods, including keeping rec-ords relating to the tracking and location ofdevices of that kind after their supply, Laborand the experts believe that such conditionsmust be mandatory. Labor amendments willplace responsibility for the accurate listing ofimplanted devices with both the manufac-turer and the medical practitioner responsiblefor the implant. There will also be provisionsfor advising the registry if an implant hasbeen removed.

While the area of most urgency relates tothose devices that are life supporting or lifesustaining, such as cardiac pacemakers, it isthe view of experts in the field that any reg-istry should eventually cover all permanentlyimplanted devices such as new hip joints,breasts and penile implants. Labor amend-ments, which allow for particulars in respectof the definition of a notifiable implantabledevice to be set out in regulation, providesufficient flexibility to address these impor-tant issues. In order to ensure that the goodsystem that Australians enjoy can be evenbetter and even safer, I would strongly urgethe government to accept these sensible andimportant amendments when they are movedduring consideration in detail.

In supporting the Therapeutic Goods(Charges) Amendment Bill 2001, Labor, andI am sure many Australians, await with inter-est the government’s response to our pro-posed amendments to the Therapeutic GoodsAmendment (Medical Devices) Bill 2001.

Mr CADMAN (Mitchell) (8.09 p.m.)—We are debating tonight changes to, and the

launch of, the therapeutic goods processes inAustralia. This is an area in which I havebeen most critical of the Therapeutic GoodsAuthority for the unnecessary delays theyimpose on Australian producers and manu-facturers, often with nothing more than abureaucratic reason, the result of which is todeny Australian users and patients the latesttechniques to be used to their benefit and toimprove their health. I have also been criticalof the costs and charges of this organisation,because there seems to be no limit to whatthey can charge for what comes into theirhead. I urge the government and the ministerto keep an eye on those processes and not torelent in respect of the high standards thatobtain to the Therapeutic Goods Authority.

The Therapeutic Goods Amendment(Medical Devices) Bill 2001 and cognate billthat we are debating tonight seeks to intro-duce an improved code and process, andsomething which is more structured and un-derstandable than what we have had in thepast. It is said that we are moving towards aEuropean consideration of therapeutic goodsand products. That has some advantages andsome disadvantages for Australia. However,there is a view among similar countries, suchas Britain, Canada, Japan and Australia, toname four, that the process we are followingis by far the best process to gain the best re-sults for Australians.

I would like to draw the attention of theHouse to another area. If we settle for a codethat has international credibility, then wemust accept that, if a product or device istested in the most rigorous way under thecode or a code similar to the one we haveadopted, that test should be adequate forAustralian conditions. If there is a need forthe manufacturers to verify at every stagethat the testing processes have been properlysupervised, and if they can verify all thetesting steps, I do not see why we shouldspend months verifying those tests in Aus-tralia. That is often the case. I noticed re-cently that the TGA fast-tracked a simpleproduct and that fast-tracking process took10 months.

I notice also that only just recently theTherapeutic Goods Administration has givenapproval to the general use of modified sili-


con breast implants. That comes just twomonths after more than 3,000 Australianwomen received a $38 million payout in thecase against the Dow Corning Corporation.There is need for care in this area and there isalso a need to make sure that Australians arenot disadvantaged and that they have accessto the most recent techniques and the besttechnology in the world for their own healthand their own benefit.

Among the issues dealt with by the TGAhas been the ordering of drugs on the Inter-net. I understand that within Australia, thePharmacy Guild of Queensland has said thatabout seven per cent of Australians could bebuying illegal and unregistered drugs overthe Internet without prescription or qualityassurance. That is a very dangerous process.Pharmaceutical and health industry repre-sentatives are absolutely right to make surethat authorities such as the TherapeuticGoods Administration are aware that thatcould be happening. The administration hassaid that it has taken several actions to stopthe illegal sale of drugs on the Internet, but itcould not provide details of every case. Thatis understandable because the managementof the Internet is new and difficult and it mayimpose very large costs on Australianauthorities as they try to track down the wayin which the Internet is being used and thepurposes for which it is being used.

I will run through the changes in the billbriefly. Five classes of classification are tobe established. Some of the examples of thetypes of medical devices that will be coveredby the regulations under the bill include classI which is defined as ‘low risk devices whichare non-invasive, such as hospital beds’—wecan imagine a long-term test on a hospitalbed—‘walking aids, wheelchairs, simplesurgical and dental instruments’. Those arethe sorts of areas that are quite irritating. Itseems to take ages to redetermine whethersomething that has proved to be serviceablefor many years, and which has a knownreputation, is safe to use. Class IIa covers‘intermediate risk medical devices ... such ashearing aids, dental filling materials, ECGmachines, hospital grade disinfectants’ andso on. Class IIb covers ‘intermediate riskmedical devices, including some invasive or

implantable devices, such as baby incuba-tors, external pacemakers, surgical lasers,ventilators’ and so on. Class III covers ‘highrisk devices, including surgically invasivedevices and animal-derived products, such asabsorbable sutures, heart valves, vascularprostheses and stents’ and other products.There is also a fifth class, AIMDs. This cov-ers ‘implantable pulse generators, im-plantable electrodes and implantable druginfusion devices’, all of which of coursecould be of high risk to the patient.

This legislation is needed and it is war-ranted. It creates a registrable and listablegroup, which I have just described. I thinkthe classification scheme is a sensible one. Iappeal to those who have responsibility touse the terms and powers of the TGA tomake sure that the complex definitions ofmedical devices and therapeutic devices aremade clear. One only has to look at the list ofdevices which fall within the definitions—ifthey are to stand as proposed—to see thewide range, which includes:• diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment oralleviation of disease,• diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, alleviation ofor compensation for an injury or handicap,• investigation, replacement or modification ofthe anatomy or of a physiological process, or• control of conception.

There are a wide range of products thatspring to mind when one looks at thosebroad series of definitions.

The government has been dealing withthis and consulting for a long time. I hope thewhole process works because it will be toAustralia’s benefit, but it must serve twopurposes: it must provide quick, accurateaccess to known cures that can produce cer-tain results and it must also act as a police-man against any abuse or uncertainty thatcan arise in the use of medical and therapeu-tic devices.

Dr SOUTHCOTT (Boothby) (8.17p.m.)—Recipients of medical devices wouldnot enjoy the same quality of life withoutthem. In particular, when we think of thingssuch as pacemakers or heart valves, it is clearthat, without these, life expectancy for somepeople would be severely limited. Medical


devices are health care products whose userequires the assistance of health care profes-sionals.

What these amendments do is benefit con-sumers through comprehensive risk man-agement. Medical devices will be classifiedaccording to the risk involved in the use ofthe device, which is dependent on the levelof invasiveness in the human body, the dura-tion of use and things like contact with thenervous system or the circulatory system.The classification moves from what we cur-rently have with the TGA—a prescriptivesystem with two classes—to a system withfive classes. The new system will identifyand manage risks involved with the newtechnology.

When we think of medical devices, it isimportant that we have a system of regula-tion and this is an improvement on the previ-ous regulation, which came into place in1989. The TGA is our equivalent of the Foodand Drug Administration in the UnitedStates. When we think of things like the Dal-kon Shield or the Bjork-Shiley heart valve,this legislation attempts to ensure that, ifthere are any unintended consequences likethere were from those items in future, therewill be an improved ability, firstly, to assessthe risk and also to recall those products.

The bill allows the introduction of an in-ternationally harmonised framework for theregulation of medical devices that will pro-tect consumers and allow for the rapid avail-ability of medical technologies. The problemwith the Therapeutic Goods AdministrationAct 1989 is that it does not balance risk clas-sification of new technologies with safetyand quality standards. That is what this newbill does. The current act only recognisesunique Australian standards and does notrecognise the fact that something like 90 percent of medical devices are imported. It alsolimits the post-market monitoring and theadverse incident reporting that can occurwithin the Australian jurisdiction.

Since the mid-1990s, the Global Harmoni-sation Task Force—which includes theUnited States, Canada, Europe, Japan andAustralia—has been working on the devel-opment of a global model to regulate medicaldevices. This model is based on the Euro-

pean approach and what this bill does is con-sistent with the global model and consistentwith the European approach. The high riskdevices are manufactured by a small numberof multinationals. To avoid the costs ofunique regulation we should have a consis-tent system around the world. I should alsomention that, while about 90 per cent ofmedical devices are imported, within Aus-tralia this is a $1.8 billion industry and about40 per cent of that is exported.

There are consumer benefits from thisnew bill. As I said before, we will have a riskbased classification, where the level ofregulation will match the risk. Also, manu-facturers will be required to be audited and tohave their systems certified. It also allowscertain high risk devices to be assessed bythe TGA—for example, products which maycontain contaminated animal material andmay be contaminated with BSE can still beassessed by the TGA.

There are also benefits for the industry inthis new bill. It removes a system of uniqueAustralian regulation. It also facilitates theagreement between Australia and the Euro-pean Union on the mutual recognitionagreement, and it provides flexibility formanufacturers and provides the option ofelectronic lodgment on the register. It alsoallows the TGA to suspend a device ratherthan just cancelling it on the register, allow-ing time to investigate adverse incidents.

The bill is the result of extensive consul-tations since 1998 with consumers, the medi-cal devices industry, professional groups andstates and territories. The Therapeutic GoodsAdministration regulates medicines andtherapeutic devices at a national level. Thisbill legislates for a new system to classify,assess and approve medical devices. Medicaldevices include pacemakers, heart valves,medical gloves, bandages, syringes, con-doms, contact lenses, X-ray equipment, heartrate monitors, surgical lasers, dialysisequipment and baby incubators. That is notan exclusive list, but it is the sort of thingthat we are looking at. The Australian medi-cal device industry was valued at $1½ billionin 1996. We have about one per cent of theglobal market and, as I mentioned, 40 per


cent of this is exported. But, of what we havehere in Australia, 90 per cent is imported.

In June 1998 Australia signed the mutualrecognition agreement with the then Euro-pean Community. This treaty covers a num-ber of industries, including the medical de-vice industry. I will go into some detail onthe treaty. It allows assessment to be carriedout in the exporting country. This is intendedas a flexibility measure to remove unneces-sary regulation and duplication. It does notrequire harmonisation or the mutual recogni-tion of standards. All the European assess-ment body has to do is check that productscomply with the Australian standards. Thereis also, as I said before, a wider Global Har-monisation Task Force which includes G7countries and the rest of the European Union.The Global Harmonisation Task Force isbased on the European system.

The aims of this bill are to reduce unnec-essary regulation and to give consumersfaster access to new technologies while stillmaintaining safety standards. The bill definesmedical devices. It also classifies medicaldevices based on the level of invasiveness ofthe body, the duration of use and the contactwith the central nervous system or the circu-latory system. For example, class I is lowrisk; class III includes things like heartvalves, absorbable sutures and vascularprostheses. It also has a special class for ac-tive implantable medical devices, which in-cludes things like pacemakers.

The bill provides for a new and compre-hensive system to classify medical devicesbased on the level of risk they will pose topatients. It also introduces essential princi-ples of safety and performance and confor-mity assessment procedures for demonstrat-ing quality management which provideminimum standards for quality and safety.The TGA will have the power to audit appli-cations and to require a conformity assess-ment. These will improve the pre-marketassessment for high risk devices. Much ofthe new scheme replicates the existing provi-sions of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 but,as I said before, it has not kept pace withactually reflecting the risk and classifying therisk of medical devices.

One issue that has been raised is implanttracking. One of the problems with this isthat implant tracking places requirements onmanufacturers and sponsors to obtain infor-mation relating to individual patients. Spon-sors and manufacturers do not have thepower to access hospital and private patienthealth records, and many of these devicesmay sit on a hospital shelf for months beforethey are implanted into a patient. It would bevery difficult for sponsors or manufacturersto obtain this information. Also, it is cur-rently outside the scope of the TherapeuticGoods Act 1989 for the TGA to regulatemedical practitioners.

It should be noted that the government al-ready does undertake some implant tracking.The bill already includes some provision forthe keeping of records by sponsors relatingto the tracking and location of devices undersection 41FO(2)(c). Conditions will beplaced on the supply of devices by sponsorsto ensure that they are involved as far as pos-sible in the keeping of records to facilitateimplant tracking. Under Australia’s existingregulatory system for medical devices, thereare no provisions in law for the establish-ment of device registries for implantablemedical devices which record the recipientsof the device and conduct long-term patienttracking.

However, currently there are some volun-tary implant registries within Australia whichare maintained by private or community fi-nanced organisations. Some link patients tospecific models of devices; others merelyrecord procedures. For example, the Austra-lia and New Zealand heart valve registryseeks to identify and locate patients im-planted with the Bjork-Shiley con-vexo/concave heart valve which I mentionedearlier. There is also the cardiac surgery reg-ister and the coronary angioplasty register,which are maintained by the Australian In-stitute of Health and Welfare. In my elector-ate of Boothby, the Australian corneal graftregister is linked to Flinders University.There is also a national joint replacementregistry which is maintained by the Austra-lian Orthopaedic Association. Device spe-cific registries are available for orthopaedicsurgery. The Australia and New Zealand


heart valve registry has retrospectively lo-cated 96 per cent of one particular valve, theBjork-Shiley convexo/concave valve.

Last year, the TGA was involved in anumber of hazard alert recall actions involv-ing cardiac pacemakers. In the two caseswhere it was considered necessary to tracepatients with the affected pacemaker, 98 percent of patients with one type of pacemakerwere traced and 100 per cent of patients withanother type of pacemaker were traced. Nocountry in the world has established a suc-cessful implant tracking system that provides100 per cent traceability of patients. In 2000the government formed the Council forSafety and Quality in Health Care, which Ithink the member for Bruce mentioned in hisspeech and which is supported by state andfederal health ministers, to provide nationalleadership to improve the safety and qualityof care in hospitals and other health settings.One of the key priorities of the council is toexamine a system to track implanted medicaldevices, and there has also been a suggestionfor a nationally operated implant trackingsystem that would use the Health InsuranceCommission database to link patients withtheir implanted medical devices. So, on theissue of implant tracking, there is already alot going on in terms of community organi-sations and there is some scope, as I said, forusing organisations like the HIC.

In relation to unintended consequenceswith the use of a device, the bill carries animprovement in the free market assessmentof products through the introduction of acomprehensive, risk based classificationsystem that will allow an appropriate level ofregulation to be applied to each class of de-vice, and that should improve the safety ofmedical devices that are approved for supplyin Australia. Despite all the precautions thatyou can have at the free market stage, thereis still the potential for problems to occurwith medical devices; therefore, this bill pro-vides, which was not previously there withthe TGA, an emphasis on post-marketmonitoring of devices, vigilance with man-datory reporting requirements for adverseincidents and provisions for the tracking ofhigh risk implantable devices. All this shouldimprove medical device safety. Australia has

in place a sophisticated post-market moni-toring and recall system, which will be en-hanced by the new arrangements in this bill.

The bill has been around for a long time.As I said before, it resulted from the mutualrecognition agreement between Australia andthe European Union. There has been exten-sive consultation with consumers and indus-try groups. Australia will be aligning withinternational best practice by adopting aglobal regulatory model for medical devices.This will ensure that consumers have timelyaccess to new technologies, while both con-sumers and industry will benefit fromavoiding unnecessary costs through the re-moval of regulatory duplication. Medicaldevice safety will be improved by movingfrom the current prescriptive regulatory sys-tem that recognises only unique Australianstandards to a comprehensive, risk basedclassification system that will allow the ap-propriate level of regulation to be applied toeach class of device. An increased emphasison post-market vigilance, with mandatoryreporting requirements for adverse incidents,and provisions for tracking of high risk im-plantable devices will also improve medicaldevice safety.

Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Small Business) (8.33 p.m.)—The Therapeutic Goods Amendment(Medical Devices) Bill 2001 will allow theintroduction of an internationally harmonisedapproach to the regulation of medical devicesin Australia. It follows recommendationsmade in the 1997 Industry Commission re-port into the medical and scientific equip-ment industries. In this day and age medicineis a very complex science, and with thatcomplex science comes the medical hard-ware that goes with it.

In my electorate of Groom we have seensome enormous advances in the sorts oftreatment that people can receive, both in theprivate and in the public systems. Part ofthose treatments includes the fitting of thesesorts of medical equipment. It is important tonot only the constituents that I represent butconstituents right around Australia that theycan have confidence in these devices and thatthey can be sure that the practices and thedevices used in Australia comply with high


Australian standards and high internationalstandards. The electorate of Groom has aneconomy that has prospered as a result ofsupplying an exceptionally high level ofservices not only to the people of the DarlingDowns but also to people in western Queen-sland and northern New South Wales. In re-turn for that prosperity the level of service, inturn, improves.

I am certainly proud of the hospitals that Ihave in my electorate. We have seen themcontinue to invest in the very latest thatmedical science has to offer—the sorts ofthings that give opportunity and quality oflife to those people who receive their treat-ment. Hospitals like St Vincent’s, St An-drew’s and the Toowoomba Base Hospitalare certainly involved in the day-to-day im-provement to not only people’s quality of lifebut also the fitting of some of the devicesthat will be covered by this proposed legisla-tion. As well as those hospitals, of course,we have smaller hospitals that service smallcommunities around Toowoomba, and bothClifton and Pittsworth are blessed with smallcommunity hospitals. Just outside my elec-torate, in the electorate of Maranoa, we havea hospital in the township of Allara and, tothe north in the electorate of Blair, we have afine hospital in the town of Crows Nest.

As I say, medicine is a very importantfacet of people’s lives these days and someof these devices have gone a long way toenhancing not only their longevity but alsotheir ability to participate in the community,to remain active and to contribute to thecommunity that is around them. The newregulatory system will lead to improvedmedical device safety through the mainte-nance of the highest standard of safety per-formance and quality and timely availabilityof medical devices marketed in Australia.The legislation requires all medical devicesto meet substantive requirements for quality,safety and performance for the protection ofpatients and users. As I say, it is importantthat we are able to offer people the highestpossible level of confidence while at thesame time providing them with the highestpossible quality equipment.

The classification of medical devices willchange from a prescriptive system to a sys-

tem where the level of regulation applied toeach class of device will be proportional tothe level of risk posed by its use based on thelevel of invasiveness, duration of use andcontact with the central nervous system orthe circulatory system. All manufacturerswill be required to meet quality system stan-dards. Under the current system, only 50 percent of manufacturers are required to meetquality system standards. You can see fromthat simple example the extra guarantees thatusers and patients who take advantage of thedevices included in this legislation will re-ceive from that one basic change.

There will be an increased emphasis onpost-market monitoring for safety, includingthe requirement that manufacturers andsponsors report adverse events involvingtheir medical devices to the TGA withinspecified time frames. Again, it is almost anafter-market service system that has beenincorporated into this to ensure that, whenthese devices are fitted, they continue to bemonitored in such a way that, if there are anysorts of issues, let alone problems, with thesedevices, they will be reported in such a waythat the issue can be addressed.

There will be provision to facilitate thetracking of high risk implantable devices.The bill will ensure that Australia will har-monise with international best practice formedical device regulation. As someone whosees internationalism and globalisation asone of the challenges facing small business,there are advantages in making sure that themedical fraternity keeps in step with interna-tional standards and that undue duplicationof process and red tape will be decreased.

Removal of red tape is something that Iam sure those people on the other side of thechamber, as well as those on this side of thechamber, would support wholeheartedly. Itremains a challenge for governments at alllevels—local, state and national—to ensurethat any opportunity to reduce red tape istaken full advantage of. Due to thesechanges, the amount of red tape will decreaseas much of the regulation duplication underthe current system will be removed.

Under the present system, medical devicesimported from overseas have to meet uniqueAustralian standards. The new regulatory


system will harmonise Australia’s regulatoryrequirements with overseas best practice,based on the recommendation of the GlobalHarmonisation Task Force. It is not asthough we are in any way compromisingstandards; we are simply aiming to facilitatethe benefits of mutual recognition agree-ments with European Union countries.

The industry will benefit from theamendments for removal of the unique Aus-tralian regulatory requirements for medicaldevices. This will decrease regulatory dupli-cation and will facilitate trade for Australianexporters and importers. As the Minister forSmall Business, I travel around Australia andvisit various electorates. I have been im-pressed on a number of occasions by indus-tries based here in Australia. In fact, some ofthem in regional Australia are not only com-peting with imported medical equipment butgoing out into that global marketplace andcompeting with the international companiesin markets all over the world. I admire thatsort of innovation and initiative, which wesee so often from small business. The qualitythat these companies produce is very muchworld standard.

This bill will also facilitate the operationof an Australian European Union mutualrecognition agreement, known as an MRA,and will particularly benefit Australia’s ac-cess to European markets. Access to marketsin the international sense is something thatwe should strive for at every opportunity.Applications for entry of low to medium riskdevices on the Australian Register of Thera-peutic Goods will be streamlined using anew electronic lodgment process. Processingtimes will be reduced markedly from 28 daysto virtual time if the pre-market certificatesmeet requirements. Twenty per cent of theapplications will be audited prior to entry.Manufacturers will have greater flexibilityand choice in the way they demonstrate thattheir products meet the substantive require-ments for safety performance and qualitythrough choice of different procedures suchas type of testing or evaluation of technicaldossiers by the regulator. All manufacturerswill be required to have a quality manage-ment system.

Given the sensitivity of certain high riskdevices, section 41EA of this new legislationprovides for these devices to be fully as-sessed by the TGA before they are marketedin Australia. This would exclude such de-vices from the scope of any mutual recogni-tion agreement Australia may have withother countries. The government considersthis to be a particularly important provisiongiven the risks associated with these par-ticular devices—for example, the possibilityof products that may contain such things ascontaminated animal material, including bo-vine sourced material from BSE identifiedcountries. Australia does indeed enjoy aunique place in the world not only in termsof medical isolation, which protects us fromsome of these animal based diseases, but alsoin terms of our livestock industry. As a pri-mary producer almost by birth, I think Aus-tralia has much to do and must be ever vigi-lant in maintaining that unique and safe po-sition not only for our inhabitants of the hu-man kind but also for our inhabitants of theanimal kind.

The scope of low risk, non-powered andnon-sterile medical devices included in theAustralian Register of Therapeutic Goodswill also be increased, allowing for a moreeffective post-marketing monitoring systemthat will ensure consumers continue to beprotected from unsafe products. There willbe a small number of products currentlyregulated as devices that will not fall underthe new framework. They will continue to beregulated by the TGA, using existing Aus-tralian standards. It is proposed to also in-clude in-vitro diagnostic products under thenew regulatory framework within the nextcouple of years. These devices include allpathology tests. The global model for thesedevices is under development and the TGAis consulting widely with stakeholders onthis matter.

There will also be an increased emphasison post-market activities, with the require-ment for manufacturers and sponsors to re-port adverse events involving their medicaldevices to the TGA within specified timeframes. Australia’s involvement in an inter-national post-market vigilance system shouldreduce the likelihood of repeated adverse


events and influence the development of newmedical devices.

Australian consumers need and benefitfrom access to a wide range of medical de-vices, including new technologies. By dollarvalue, approximately 90 per cent of medicaldevices used by Australians are imported.The Australian medical devices market isapproximately one per cent of the globalmarket. It is therefore imperative that Aus-tralia has a regulatory system aligned withworld’s best practice that ensures a high de-gree of medical device safety, performanceand quality and also allows timely access tonew devices. This will ensure that we main-tain maximum safety for the users of thesedevices while at the same time ensuring that,when these devices are of a standard inwhich we can have confidence, their intro-duction into the Australian medical system isnot delayed or held up in any way.

The international model of regulationadopts the global model developed by theGlobal Harmonisation Task Force, compris-ing the regulators of Europe, the USA, Can-ada, Japan and Australia. The European sys-tem is the basis for the new global model.The new regulatory requirements will facili-tate the operation of the Australian-EuropeanUnion mutual recognition agreement, MRA,by avoiding unnecessary or unique regula-tions which make Australian access to inter-national markets less competitive.

As is usually the case with changes, therewill be some cost implications for industry,such as the cost of implementing quality as-surance systems. But these costs should bemore than offset by increased export oppor-tunity under the new system and savingsthrough the removal of regulatory duplica-tion. In other words, it will be a more effi-cient system which will give industries thatproduce these goods here in Australia someadded confidence to invest in the develop-ment and marketing of products. However,the impact on individual companies will de-pend on the commercial decisions they makeand the market pressures. While there will besome increase in costs for those companieswhose products are reclassified to a higherrisk category and because of the need for allmanufacturers to have a quality management

system, overall there should be savings to theindustry through the harmonisation of tech-nical requirements and standards.

Some areas of industry that market medi-cal device products that are exempt from orexcluded under the current arrangementshave expressed concern about the move toregulate their products and the potential costinvolved in implementing quality assuranceprograms. These changes are in line withinternational best practice to ensure highquality and safe medical devices. These in-creased costs could also be offset by poten-tial gains through easier access to Europeanmarkets for Australian manufacturers andentry into Australia for products importedfrom Europe. The TGA is looking at a num-ber of measures, including the grouping offamilies of low to medium risk devices underone ARTG entry to ensure that there is not asignificant increase in regulatory costs forsuppliers of these devices.

The vast majority of products that are cur-rently regulated as therapeutic devices willbe regulated as medical devices under thenew system. A small number of productswill not fall under the new framework, asthey do not fit the international definition ofa medical device. These include household,commercial and hospital grade disinfectantsand menstrual tampons. These will continueto be regulated by the TGA using existingAustralian standards. Devices incorporatinghuman tissue will also not be included in thenew framework. There is a general agree-ment internationally that human tissueshould be considered as a separate categoryto medicines and medical devices for Aus-tralia to maintain its existing ones. The TGAis currently consulting on a regulatoryframework for these products. In-vitro diag-nostic products will also be regulated underthe existing system initially. However, it isproposed to include in-vitro diagnostic prod-ucts under a new regulatory frameworkwithin the next couple of years. These de-vices include pathology tests. The globalmodel for these devices is under develop-ment and the TGA is currently consultingwidely with stakeholders on this matter.

The new system includes the power forthe TGA to suspend a medical device from


the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goodswhen appropriate, rather than cancelling thedevice from the register. This measure willallow manufacturers and sponsors to investi-gate and resolve potentially serious medicaldevice problems without requiring the spon-sor to reapply to the TGA, with the associ-ated costs of application and re-evaluation.

The changes facilitate Australia’s partici-pation in the international exchange of vigi-lance reports and the TGA’s acceptance of asingle internationally agreed dossier for mar-keting approval. The current system was atthe cutting edge of international regulatorypractice for medical devices when it was firstintroduced in 1991 and has served the Aus-tralian community well. However, the rangeof sophisticated medical devices is develop-ing quickly. This growth is matched by con-sumer expectations for safe and timely ac-cess to new technology. Australia must up-date its regulatory system and harmonisewith international best practice or be left be-hind the rest of the world.

To sum up, the Therapeutic GoodsAmendment (Medical Devices) Bill 2001and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges)Amendment Bill 2001 seek to allow the in-troduction of an internationally harmonisedframework for the regulation of medical de-vices in Australia. This will allow betterprotection of public health while facilitatingavailability of medical technologies consis-tent with state-of-the-art and current knowl-edge. Australia will be aligning with interna-tional best practice by adopting a globalregulatory model for medical devices. Thiswill ensure consumers have timely access tonew technologies while consumers and theindustry will benefit from avoiding unneces-sary costs for the removal of regulatory du-plication.

Medical device safety will be improved bymoving from the current prescriptive regu-latory system that recognises only uniqueAustralian standards to a comprehensive, riskbased classification system that will allowthe appropriate level of regulation to be ap-plied in each class of device. An increasedemphasis on post-market vigilance withmandatory reporting requirements for ad-verse incidents and the provision of tracking

of high risk implantable devices will alsoimprove medical device safety. I commendthe legislation to the House.


Consideration in DetailBill—by leave—taken as a whole.Mr GRIFFIN (Bruce) (8.53 p.m.)—by

leave—I move opposition amendments Nos1 and 2:

(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 19, after pro-posed section 41BD (after line 35), insert

41 BDA What is a notifiable implantablemedical device

(1) A notifiable implantable medicaldevice is a medical device that isintended by the person underwhose name it is to be supplied tobe used in the body of a humanbeing to operate for the purpose ofthe(a) prevention, monitoring,

treatment or alleviation ofdisease, or

(b) monitoring, treatment oralleviation of or compen-sation for an injury orhandicap.

(2) The regulations may set out par-ticulars in respect of the definitionof a notifiable implantable medicaldevice.

(3) Without limiting subsections (1) or(2), the following kinds of medicaldevices may be classified as notifi-able implantable medical devices:(a) implantable cardiac pacing

systems, including pulsegenerators, defibrillators,cardioverters, antiachycar-dia devices and their im-plantable accessories, and

(b) prosthetic heart valves.(2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 51, after

proposed section 41FO (after line29) insert:

41 FOA Notifiable Implantable Devices(1) The Secretary must ensure that

those kinds of medical deviceswhich are notifiable implantablemedical devices are recorded in apart of the Register to be known asthe Register of Notifiable Im-plantable Devices.


(2) The regulations may set out re-quirements relating to the obliga-tions of manufacturers, importersand medical practitioners in re-spect of notifiable implantablemedical devices.

(3) Without limiting subsection (1),the regulations must provide forthe recording, in respect of eachimplantable medical device, of the(a) serial number or other

unique identification ofeach device;

(b) name, citizenship and con-tact details of any person inwhom an implantablemedical device is im-planted;

(c) date on which the devicewas implanted and the rea-son(s) for its implantation;and

(d) date on which a device isremoved from a person, thename of the person fromwhom it is removed, andthe reason(s) for its re-moval.

(4) The regulations may set out termsand conditions concerning accessto the details contained in theRegister of Notifiable ImplantableDevices.

41 FOB Conditions(1) The Secretary may authorise a per-

son to import or manufacture noti-fiable medical devices subject tosuch conditions and duration as theSecretary sees fit.

(2) Failure to comply with these con-ditions or to make notifications inaccordance with the regulations aregrounds for revocation of theauthority.

As already outlined in my second readingspeech, Labor is moving two amendments tothis bill in order to establish a register fornotifiable implantable medical devices. Inote the presence in the advisers box of thehead of the Therapeutic Goods Administra-tion, Mr Terry Slater, who would be respon-sible for implementation in this area. I drawto the attention of the House, as I mentionedearlier, the issue of St Jude’s pacemakers. St

Jude is, as I said, the patron saint of desper-ate causes. As a lifelong Collingwood sup-porter, I think Mr Slater is aware of the factthat St Jude can apply in a range of endeav-ours.

The register will provide an additionalsafeguard for Australians by allowing track-ing of implanted devices. This will facilitateimproved processes in the event of a productrecall. In acknowledgment of the work that isto be undertaken by the Council for Safetyand Quality in Health Care, the Laboramendments provide a flexible frameworkfor the establishment of the register. Thus thefirst amendment, which defines ‘notifiableimplantable device’ provides for the regula-tions to set out particulars in respect of thedefinition. This not only allows for productsthat are life sustaining or life supporting,such as pacemakers, to be covered, but willenable other implantable devices such asbreast or penile implants to be included ifdeemed appropriate by relevant experts orexpert committees.

Similarly, the second amendment providesfor the regulations to set out requirements formanufacturers, importers and medical prac-titioners in respect of notifiable implantabledevices, outlines the information required tobe recorded on the register, and sets condi-tions concerning access to details in the pro-posed register.

These amendments provide the flexibilityrequired to establish a register that can berefined and adjusted to take into account anyfuture proposals and standards developedand recommended by experts or expertcommittees. Given the flexibility these pro-posals provide and the fact that an expertgovernment committee has already recom-mended urgent action in this area, I againurge—although, I suspect, forlornly—thegovernment to accept Labor’s sensible andtimely amendments.

Mr IAN MACFARLANE (Groom—Minister for Small Business) (8.56 p.m.)—Iam disappointed that I have only fiveminutes to speak to these amendments. Therehas been extensive consultation on thisproposal since 1998, with consumers, themedical device industry, professional groupsand states and territories. There is support forthe proposed new regulatory reforms


new regulatory reforms amongst all thesegroups, and I am happy to say that the newmedical device industry, consumers and pro-fessional groups are in favour of the newinternationally harmonised regulatory systemfor all medical devices.

All medical devices will have to meet thesubstantive requirements for safety, perform-ance and quality for protection of patientsand users. The technical expression of theserequirements is ensured by internationallyagreed standards. Medical devices will beclassified according to the degree of risk in-volved in the use of the device, based on thelevel of invasiveness, duration of use, andcontact with the central nervous and circula-tory systems. The new rules based classifi-cation system will appropriately identify andmanage any risks associated with new andemerging technologies. There will be an in-creased emphasis on post-market monitoringof product safety, with a requirement formanufacturers and sponsors to report adverseevents involving their medical devices to theTGA within specified periods. There will bea provision to facilitate fast-tracking of highrisk implantable devices.

The TGA will introduce the world’s high-est standards for post-market monitoring ofadverse incidents relating to medical devices.In the event of a reportable near adverseevent, where the event has not resulted indeath or serious injury, the sponsor mustsubmit a report of the adverse event as soonas possible, but not later than 30 days afterthe date of becoming aware of the event.

Currently there are some voluntary im-plant registers within Australia maintainedby private or community financed organisa-tions. Some link patients to specific modelsof devices; others merely record the proce-dures. These registers include the Australia-New Zealand Heart Valve Registry, the Car-diac Surgery Registry and the Coronary An-gioplasty Registry—a register maintained bythe Australian Institute of Health and Wel-fare. And the list goes on. There has alsobeen a suggestion for a nationally operatedimplant tracking system which uses theHealth Insurance Commission database tolink patients to their implanted medical de-vices.

The government received these amend-ments proposed by the Labor Party only thisafternoon, so there has been little time toassess the proposals in detail. It would seemimpractical to accept the amendments in theircurrent form, as they place requirements onmanufacturers and sponsors to obtain infor-mation relating to individual patients. Spon-sors and manufacturers do not have thepower to access hospital and private patienthealth records, and many of these devicesmay sit on a hospital shelf for months beforethey are implanted into a patient. Thus itwould be difficult for sponsors or manufac-turers to obtain this information. Addition-ally, it is currently outside the scope of theTherapeutic Goods Act 1989 for the Thera-peutic Goods Administration to regulatemedical practitioners. On these grounds thegovernment cannot support the proposedamendments as drafted. However, it shouldbe noted that the government is interested infacilitating implant tracking, and the bill al-ready includes some provision for keepingrecords by sponsors relating to the trackingand location of devices under section41FO2(c). Conditions will be placed on thesupply of devices by sponsors to ensure thatthey are involved as far as possible in thekeeping of records to facilitate implanttracking.

Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.

Third ReadingBill (on motion by Mr Ian Macfar-

lane)—by leave—read a third time.THERAPEUTIC GOODS (CHARGES)

AMENDMENT BILL 2001Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 29 March, onmotion by Mr McGauran:

That the bill be now read a second time.



moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane)

read a third time.


SPACE ACTIVITIES AMENDMENT(BILATERAL AGREEMENT) BILL

2001Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 June, on motionby Mr Anthony:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Mr MARTYN EVANS (Bonython) (9.02p.m.)—The opposition supports the SpaceActivities Amendment (Bilateral Agreement)Bill 2001, which seeks to amend the SpaceActivities Act 1998, which the Houseadopted only some three years ago when wewere at the threshold of a new phase of thespace industry in Australia, and which pro-vides for the making of regulations that willgive effect to certain aspects of the agree-ment between the government of Australiaand the government of the Russian Federa-tion which relate to cooperation in the fieldof exploration and the use of outer space forpeaceful purposes. This agreement wassigned in Canberra only recently—in fact, on23 May 2001—and I was able to be presentafter the signing at the embassy, where anumber of the visiting delegates from theRussian Federation presented their creden-tials in this area and discussed with thosewho were able to be present at that time themechanisms by which they proposed to im-plement this treaty. The degree of enthusiasmthey had for working with Australia in thisarea was very encouraging indeed.

It is proposed that the bill will authorisethe making of the regulations which in factthen proceed to implement in detail the treatywhich we have signed with the Russian Fed-eration. That is essential in order to protect anumber of aspects of the arrangement whichis proposed. They include the protection ofnot only the intellectual property and someof the physical property which is involved inthe space industry and in particular with theRussian launch facilities but also the natureof the dual use technology which is involvedin space activities. Obviously some of therocket engines and constructions could havedual use facilities in a military context, ascould many of the control technologies asso-ciated with this. Substantial protection isrequired for that.

There are also issues with duty and importcosts, both into Australia and into Russia,which need to be eliminated if we are to havea cost-effective industry. Indeed, the Russiangovernment requires that as a precondition toensure that their goods that relate to thespace industry are given appropriate treat-ment on entry into Australia. The space in-dustry itself represents the ultimate in exportindustries. I suppose it would have been ex-empt under the GST provisions anyway,even though some of the material occasion-ally may return—all of it we hope in a con-trolled fashion, but of course there is alwaysa possibility of an adverse and uncontrollablereturn. We would certainly require that theappropriate safety mechanisms be in place,which is what the principal act seeks to do.

This is the first time the Russian Federa-tion have signed an agreement of this naturewith another country. It is to Australia’scredit that we have established the appropri-ate physical credentials in relation to thespace industry, because obviously Australiahas those in abundance in terms of the ap-propriate remote locations—whether that isChristmas Island or Woomera—and the ap-propriate areas where, if there is an adverseevent associated with this, public safety isnot put at risk. Also, we have a significanthistory in relation to the space industry, par-ticularly Woomera in my own state of SouthAustralia where a great deal of work hasbeen done on this.

Indeed, some opportunities were lostwhen the combined Australian, British andEuropean space initiatives of the sixties wereeventually abandoned, when Britain pulledout of the Blue Streak activity and the otherEuropean rocket launches here. Subsequentlywe have seen this technology adopted, withthe Ariane space industry out of FrenchGuyana in Africa, with a very substantiallaunch facility there and significant invest-ment going into that. But our concern is withAustralia, and particularly in this case thetwo areas where the Russian technology isinvolved: Christmas Island—my colleagueWarren Snowdon will address those issuesshortly in some detail—and Woomera inSouth Australia.


The global space industry is a very sig-nificant industry. It employs something likeone million people around the world thesedays and is probably worth in the order of$US100 billion. That is a very substantialinvestment in anyone’s terms. Quite clearly,Australia needs to be part of this industry,not only because of the economic benefitsthat can arise from being part of the launchindustry itself, which is what we are particu-larly discussing here, but also because thathas numerous spin-off benefits in other tech-nologies. That is probably the area where thegovernment needs to pay the closest attentionto ensure that our industry is able to benefitfrom the diverse opportunities which willarise from having a key component of thespace industry here.

We need to develop skills in that highlysensitive manufacturing area which is asso-ciated with space launches. Obviously, spacetechnology is worked to very high tolerancesand very exact manufacturing work, withvery high quality control standards. That hasvery good spin-offs in other areas of manu-facturing, because the skills you developthere can be broadened and applied across awider variety of activities. Obviously, itflows on to communications equipment,communications expertise, telemetry and allof the associated data processing which goeswith that. Other industries also flow fromthat, because space is very much a platformthese days for the telecommunications andphone industries, for the Internet and datatransfer industries, and for global positioningsystems. The Europeans have launched theirGalileo system, which goes with the Russianglasnost and the American GPS systems. Allof those geographical determining electronicsystems allow people to pinpoint their loca-tion in space and also in time, which is veryaccurate, I might say. That positioning sys-tem technology will be useful in many ways,including tracking aircraft, motor vehiclesand trucks. It will be used in a wide varietyof applications which we can also expect tobe part of if we are participants in the spaceindustry itself.

Those spin-offs are also used in the tele-communications industry and the satellitetelevision industry, whether that is direct to

home satellite technology or mobile phonetype technology. We have recently seensome economic catastrophes in mobile phonetechnology in relation to the iridium system,with multibillion dollar investments nolonger being all that active. But a new usehas been found for the system, albeit at asomewhat lower price, and many other sys-tems are now competing to cater for thatarea, with new technology arriving all thetime. Remote sensing activities are alsosomething which Australia needs to becomemuch more expert in deploying for our agri-cultural and mining industries. A wide vari-ety of applications from remote sensing willensure that we are able to capitalise on theflow through benefits of the space industryitself.

So a wide variety of applications flowfrom the space industry, and the governmenthas an important role in ensuring that ourindustrial sector can capture some of thosebenefits. To do that, an investment in re-search and development is required, some-thing that this government has not excelled atin recent years, and there is a significantneed for Australian industry to be alert to theopportunities. Those opportunities will onlycome once, and once they pass us by, as wehave discovered in other industries, it will bevery difficult to recover them.

Australia does have its own involvementin the space industry with the FedSat pro-gram. FedSat is due to be launched from Ja-pan, as it happens, in early 2002. It is a 58-centimetre cube weighing approximately 50kilograms. This is one of the new breed ofmicrosatellites and will be an increasinglyimportant part of our technological capacityin the future. It can play a very importantrole in delivering benefits from the satellitetechnology, but at a lower cost and withlower risk. The problem with the very large,very expensive satellites is if they fail insome way. Obviously, the investment ismassive, the cost implications are enormousand the development time is very long.NASA, the American space agency, has an-nounced the trend of faster, cheaper and bet-ter satellite technology, which is relevant tothe whole space industry but particularlyNASA. It appropriately applies to the satel-


lite technology as well to ensure that we areable to put a number of important platformsinto space but on a reasonably cheap andeffective basis.

For example, the FedSat satellite will in-clude GPS technology—which will allow anumber of important experiments to be un-dertaken and resolved in relation to the accu-racy of GPS—a magnetometer, high per-formance computing, Ka-band transponders,a base band processor, UHF communicationspayload and a historic CD-ROM, includingsome important Australian music and Aus-tralian records to serve as a time capsule overthe next hundred years or so.

The individual experiments by themselvesare very important to those who are affiliatedwith them, although they are not as importantfrom the parliament’s point of view. Theparliament is more interested in the fact thatthe platform is there to put them into spaceand the fact that Australians are workingvery actively in the Cooperative ResearchCentre for Satellite Systems. A number ofyoung and enthusiastic engineers, scientistsand technical people are involved who dogreat credit to themselves and to the Austra-lian capacity in this area.

The parliament will certainly share in thejoy next year when this satellite is effectivelylaunched into orbit and the first signals comeback and we are able to demonstrate our ca-pability in this area. I also hope that we willbe able to demonstrate our capability in thelaunch area as a result of the technologywhich this legislation allows us to capture forAustralia and the cooperation which it envis-ages with the Russian federation. Our indus-try should benefit from the subsequent spin-off technologies, which are very diverse andbroad. This generation of young engineersand scientists should benefit from an Austra-lian space industry, just as a previous gen-eration did. They will ensure that in the fu-ture we have the experience, enthusiasm andcapability to develop those very valuablespin-off industries around the launch indus-try itself. So the opposition supports the leg-islation, commends the bill to the House andlooks forward to the future development ofour Australian space industry.

Dr WASHER (Moore) (9.14 p.m.)—I riseto speak on the government’s Space Activi-ties Amendment (Bilateral Agreement) Bill2001. Introducing the bill for its secondreading in the House, my colleague the Min-ister for Community Services, Larry An-thony, outlined its details. This amendmentbill is necessary to accommodate a very sig-nificant recent event in Australia’s efforts toreinstate itself as a player in the global spaceindustry. That event was the signing of the‘Agreement between the government ofAustralia and the government of the RussianFederation on cooperation in the field of theexploration and use of outer space for peace-ful purposes’. Members may not be awarethat there are four companies looking atAustralia as a base for commercial spacelaunch facilities; two of those companies areplanning to use Russian technology. Thesigning of the agreement in May this year byour own highly productive and dedicatedMinister for Industry, Science and Re-sources, the Hon. Nick Minchin, and Mr YuriKoptev, Director-General of the RussianAviation and Space Agency, is the greenlight for our space industry to develop as aglobal player.

The agreement between Australia andRussia covers matters such as establishing alegal and organisational framework for thetransfer of space technology, expertise andequipment; protection of intellectual andphysical property; waiving of import dutiesfor equipment into both countries; and al-lowing other parties access to these agree-ments. The agreement between Australia andthe Russian Federation and this bill will fa-cilitate progress by companies working withthe Russian space agency. The most ad-vanced proposal involves the Asia PacificSpace Centre plan, which will use ChristmasIsland as a space launch facility and utiliseRussian technology.

The government’s support for the devel-opment of Australia’s space industry is un-ambiguous. In that regard, I was delighted byMinister Minchin’s announcement that thegovernment is willing to spend up to $100million on Christmas Island to support theproject. This incentive was provided tocounter the financial advantages offered by


existing infrastructure at a competing spacelaunch facility in Alcantara, Brazil. Thismoney will be invested in infrastructure onChristmas Island, such as airport upgradeand new port and road investment, as well asproviding assistance with ground station fa-cilities. It is part of a total $800 million in-vestment planned by the Asia Pacific SpaceCentre that will see Australia re-enter and bea player in the space industry in a way thatwe have not been since the 1950s.

Being from Western Australia, I also wel-come the investment as an economic boostfor the Christmas Island community. It isexpected to generate up to 400 jobs duringconstruction and up to 550 jobs once it isoperational. This investment and the workdone by the government, especially MinisterMinchin, have been vital in attracting interestto Australia and demonstrating our commit-ment to seeing a space industry and satellitelaunch facilities established in Australia.

The APSC project will also open opportu-nities for the broader Australian space sector,especially in the design, manufacture, testingand flight preparation of satellites and inlaunch related technologies, such as spacecommunications. Again, Western Australia iswell placed in relation to this major projectto benefit from these new opportunities. Ex-amples of high-tech potential include thefuture development of new jobs in Australiafor electrical and mechanical engineers,aerospace engineers, physicists and statisticalspecialists, working in such areas as payloadintegration, launch vehicle preparation andtesting, and telemetry tracking. APSC alsoproposes to establish a space research centre,which will offer postgraduate teaching andresearch in collaboration with other Austra-lian and international research institutions.

Construction work on the spaceport andsupporting infrastructure is scheduled to be-gin later this year, and APSC intends to con-duct two test launches in 2003. APSC is theonly project targeting geostationary orbits.Geostationary satellites are approximately23,000 miles above the earth’s surface andthey remain above a fixed point on theequator. Satellites in geostationary orbit areusually large, with a long operational life,such as communications satellites. Christmas

Island is located relatively close to theequator, enabling launch vehicles to carryheavier payloads. The main proposed flightpath for rockets launched from ChristmasIsland will be to the east—in keeping withgeostationary payloads—out over the TimorSea and travelling between Australia andPapua New Guinea.

All launches will be subject to stringentsafeguards, with no member of the public tobe exposed to a risk exceeding one chance ofcasualty in 10 million launches. The Austra-lian Petroleum Production and ExplorationAssociation, APPEA, has expressed concernswith respect to the safety of their workersand facilities. But I also know that WarrenEntsch, in association with the Departmentof Industry, Science and Resources, has beenworking very closely for many months withAPPEA to ensure that our petroleum and gasassets are protected.

Labor’s reaction to the coalition’s com-mitment of $100 million to Christmas Islandand APSC has been very strange. With La-bor’s talk about a Knowledge Nation, youwould think the party would have been thefirst to congratulate the government formaking such a substantial investment in thisexciting high-technology industry—ac-knowledged earlier by the shadow minister.Instead, Labor came out the day after thegovernment’s announcement and started at-tacking the commitment as being economi-cally irresponsible; the opposition financespokesperson even referred to it as a ‘votebuying exercise’. This shows the hypocrisyof the ALP in relation to science and innova-tion: they are big on rhetoric but fail to de-liver when it comes to the crunch.

The coalition has shown that it is preparedto put its money on the table with a fullycosted and planned science and innovationprogram. The Prime Minister’s innovationstatement, Backing Australia’s Ability, willprovide $2.9 billion of additional fundingover five years for science and innovation.This is the largest commitment ever made byan Australian government. On the otherhand, you have Labor’s Knowledge Nation,which is simply an uncosted and confusedseries of motherhood statements.


The APSC project is a very important stepin terms of Australia’s engaging in the high-technology commercial space industry. Itwill be good for Christmas Island, and it willbe good for Western Australia. If Labor areserious about seeing Western Australia growand develop in new and innovative ways,they should come out and state clearly thatthey support APSC and the Christmas Islandproject—and it appears that they will be do-ing so, and I congratulate them for that. Ialso congratulate the minister on his effortsthus far, and I commend the bill to theHouse.

Mr SNOWDON (Northern Territory)(9.22 p.m.)—I am pleased to be able to speakon the Space Activities Amendment (Bilat-eral Agreement) Bill 2001 this evening. Inote in passing that I spoke on similar legis-lation in December 1998, on the then SpaceActivities Bill 1998, and I recall the euphoriaat that time that was around this place and,indeed, in the public domain about the im-portance of the agreement which precededthat piece of legislation and in fact was thecause of it. That was as a result of arrange-ments between Kistler Aerospace and theCommonwealth government. Despite thepublic statements at the time, we have yet tosee any space activity get off the ground—ifI can use that term—in the sense of havingany of the bases commence or of having anyof the bases that were proposed then, and arecurrently being proposed, launch any rock-ets. I will come back to that, but I first wantto refer to the nature of the legislation thisevening.

The Space Activities Amendment (Bilat-eral Agreement) Bill 2001 is important be-cause of what it will do. I will refer to theBills Digest from the Library for the sourceof this first part of my contribution. It saysthe bill’s purpose is:To permit the operation of an inter-governmentalagreement between the Government of the Rus-sian Federation and the Commonwealth thatwould facilitate the import of Russian space tech-nologies for possible launch from Australia.

In its background notes the Bills Digestpoints out that on 23 May 2001:... representatives of the Commonwealth and theRussian State signed the Agreement between the

Government of Australia and the Government ofthe Russian Federation on Cooperation in theField of the Exploration and Use of Outer Spacefor Peaceful Purposes. The signing followed asaga of various proposals for the launch of for-eign space rockets with satellite payloads from anumber of proposed local facilities.

I will refer to those in some more detail later.The Bills Digest says that the agreement pro-vides for the exemption of imported special-ised space-related goods and equipment froman Australian duty of up to five per cent. Itsays that we should note that the Sales TaxLegislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998passed through parliament in early 1999 andthat this involved an exemption for spaceobjects such as satellites launched fromAustralia. Again, this was the result of thenegotiations which took place primarily be-tween Kistler Aerospace and the Common-wealth government. It goes on to say:Australia had already maintained a space agree-ment with the former Soviet Union. That Agree-ment between the Government of the Union of theSoviet Socialist Republics and the Government ofAustralia on Cooperation in the Field of Explo-ration and the Use of Outer Space for PeacefulPurposes of 1 December 1987 is replaced by anew Agreement. It is not clear whether any sig-nificant programs emerged or succeeded underthe previous agreement.

The Bills Digest says the effect of this legis-lation will involve an amendment to theCustoms Tariff Act 1995, with the ministerto authorise project concessions underguidelines to be developed. This would occurthrough the Customs Tariff Proposal No. 5(2001) during winter 2001.

The provisions of the bill amend the SpaceActivities Act 1998 to provide for newregulations to give effect to the provisions ofthe agreement. Regulations made under sec-tion 79A should enable the minister to nomi-nate organisations to carry out specialisedactivities. Item 4 of schedule 1 of the billinserts a new part 5A in the Space ActivitiesAct 1998, the principal effect of which is toallow the making of regulations to give ef-fect to the provisions of specified space co-operation agreements, in this case the newagreement. Item 6 of schedule 1 of the billinserts a new schedule 6 in the Space Activi-ties Act 1998 that contains an English text


version of the inter-governmental agreementwith Russia. An interesting feature in thisBills Digest, and something which I note isreferred to in the informed or specialist me-dia, is the nature of the current launch mar-ket. The Bills Digest says:A recent Euroconsult 2000 report estimates thatthe US$34.6 billion launch market for 657 satel-lites, over this decade, includes a 61 per cent allo-cation to commercial operators with 42 per centopen to tender.

It goes on to say:However, according to a Canberra-based analyst,the projected supply of commercial spacelaunches far exceeds estimates of demand overthe decade. Asia-Pacific Aerospace Consultantsbelieves that the oversupply approaches 200 percent. As well, two major launch vehicle operatorshave made large bulk purchases of their own ve-hicles to lower costs.

So it raises a question about the new launchopportunities that will be exploited by thissite on Christmas Island and the two propos-als for Woomera, which I will refer to now.The first is that of Kistler, which aims to usereusable rockets from Woomera in SouthAustralia, and Spacelift Australia, whichplans to use SS25 Russian ballistic missilesrockets, also from Woomera. What we needto be wary of here are the conditions underwhich these companies are coming to Aus-tralia. The Asia Pacific Space Centre pro-poses to launch Russian vehicles fromChristmas Island and plans to commenceconstruction of the space centre in September2001. I will refer to that in more detailshortly, but I want to go back for a momentto refer to an article in Aviation Week &Space Technology on 28 May 2001 which isheaded ‘Rocket shakeout looms as overca-pacity grows’. The reason I want to say thisis because I am a little worried that the con-ditions being placed upon this new industryfor Australia may be a little too onerous andthat in fact, in a very tight market, the possi-ble effect might be that these launch facilitiesmay not happen.

I am not arguing that we should not beproviding appropriate regulation, but weneed to be very careful that we do not over-regulate and that we strike an appropriatebalance. We must understand that thesecompanies are looking with interest at and

have invested tens of millions of dollars indeveloping their proposals in terms of engi-neering, general planning and the consulta-tion that takes place with these enterprises,and that we need to be very wary that we donot impose such regulations that will causethose companies not to be here.

An issue that has been of some concern ishazard analysis. A view has been expressedby some that, because of the nature of theUnited States experience in this industry,Australian regulations should replicate thosethat exist in the United States. I have a dif-ferent view. I expect that we have regulationsthat are appropriate, fair and reasonable, andthat we protect as far as we possibly canAustralian citizens against any contingencythat might arise as a result of a malfunctioncoming from one of those launches. But it isalso true to say that we are an attractive des-tination as a host for these launch facilitiesbecause of the relative isolation of Australiaand because we can get paths for the trajec-tory of rockets that are launched fromChristmas Island or Woomera that go overareas where, in normal circumstances, thereis very low risk of impacting upon anypopulation or population centre. That is notthe case in the United States. It is thereforefair to presume, I would have thought, thatwhen we are drafting regulations and deter-mining, on the basis of hazard analysis, whatthese regulations should require, we pay ap-propriate attention and due regard to the na-ture of the Australian geography and to ourrelative isolation and seek to maximise thebenefit all round to the Australian commu-nity.

As I have said, I am not opposed to regu-lation. Indeed, I understand how importantregulation is in what for us is a neophyteindustry, but at the same time we want to bevery concerned. If we combine the total in-vestment that is proposed for launch sites onChristmas Island and at Woomera, we arelooking at a sum approaching $2 billion ormore. That is a significant investment. Weneed to be cognisant, as I have said, of thestate of the market. It will not take too much,with the market as it has been described, forpeople to be turned off the possibilities herein Australia. We have heard already how the


government came up with a package of $100million for the Asia Pacific Space Centrebecause of the possibility that they might goto another country. That raises significantissues, quite frankly, and I will come to themin a moment, but the article from AviationWeek & Space Technology of 28 May in partstates:Projections show a sustained market for thelaunch of at least 30 commercial geosynchronoussatellite missions per year. But it also shows littlegrowth to support multiplying launcher develop-ments and dwindling insurance reserves.

Further on it says:The projected commercial market can not sustainall of the launch systems that are here today, letalone all of the launch systems that are going tobe in place by the end of the year ...

That is what Wilbur Trafton, President ofSea Launch, told executives at a forum. Thatraises significant questions for us as a host tothese launch facilities. At the end of the day,commercial decisions will be made and theproponents of the space launch facility onChristmas Island, the Asia Pacific SpaceCentre, and those for Woomera, Kistler andSpacelift Australia, will make their commer-cial decision. But we want to be careful thatthey do not make a commercial decision thatis affected by costs that need not be imposedas a result of regulatory requirements that aretoo onerous. I make the plea to the govern-ment that they should expedite the negotia-tions in such a way that, whilst the regulatoryrequirements are appropriate, they are nottoo onerous.

We have seen a lot of media reports overrecent days about the launch facility onChristmas Island, in particular the undertak-ing by the federal government to make $100million available for that proposal. The $100million, I am advised, will pay for the up-grade of the island’s runway, new port fa-cilities and construction of the spaceport’smission control. I just pose the question tothe government, and perhaps I will get a re-sponse, as to whether Spacelift Australia orKistler will be afforded the same access totaxpayers’ funds. Is there now a new pro-posal for industry development in terms ofthe aerospace industry that the governmentundertakes to support new developments

such as those proposed for Woomera and forwhich moneys have already been invested?Does the government intend to approach theproponents of those facilities with an offer toassist in the way it is assisting the proponentsfor the base on Christmas Island? Will thegovernment offer to pay for the constructioncosts of their mission control?

You will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker,that I am the member for the Northern Ter-ritory. Christmas Island and the Cocos Is-lands are part of my electorate. I am fullyconversant with the conditions on ChristmasIsland and with the fact that infrastructure isextremely poor. I strongly welcome the $100million in terms of the impact it will make onpublic infrastructure, infrastructure availablefor public purposes, that will be accessible tothe community of Christmas Island onChristmas Island. There is no question aboutthat. However, it is very important that thecommunity is satisfied about the way inwhich these matters have been developedand about the desirability of having the AsiaPacific Space Centre project in the commu-nity. I say that because I was very surprisedto learn recently that the announcement madeby Senators Minchin and Macdonald onChristmas Island was not advised to thecommunity. In fact, the Shire President, An-drew Smolders, who I spoke to earlier thisevening told me that he was advised aboutthe announcement by telephone after theministerial party had arrived on ChristmasIsland.

The issue here is one which dogs this gov-ernment. In relation to Christmas Island andthe Cocos Islands—but particularly in rela-tion to Christmas Island—the minister re-sponsible, Minister Macdonald, has shown agreat reluctance to consult, communicate ornegotiate appropriately with the communityof Christmas Island. He has effectively re-fused to acknowledge the importance of theshire council as a democratic forum whichrepresents the interests of the community ofChristmas Island. When questions have beenraised by the community of Christmas Islandabout the Asia Pacific Space Centre pro-posal, they have been frustrated by the lackof response they have received from theCommonwealth.


There are mixed views on Christmas Is-land about the proposal from the Asia PacificSpace Centre project. Those views are mixedbecause people are concerned primarily be-cause they have not been provided with ap-propriate information by the company or bythe government. I find this very galling be-cause, on the face of it at least, there are sub-stantial benefits to be gained for the commu-nity of Christmas Island by the developmentof this facility. Indeed, it has been estimatedthat there will be 400-odd jobs, or therea-bouts, during the construction phase, and inexcess of 500 jobs when the launch facility isoperating. That is not small beer, particularlywhen the largest employer on the island,Phosphate Resources Ltd, is currently em-ploying around 180 people.

A reasonable person should have a rea-sonable expectation that, in a remote com-munity like Christmas Island, the govern-ment would go out of its way, because it is asmall community which has been affected bythe closure of a resort facility which, by theway, is owned by a sister company of theAsia Pacific Space Centre. Promises weremade when Soft Star became the owner ofthe resort that they would have the resort upand running as a resort and a casino within12 months. That has not happened and thecommunity of Christmas Island is frustratedby that. When the resort was opened, it em-ployed around 300 people. The community’sexpectations in relation to that issue wereraised and they have not been met. Yet therehas been no open, fair and reasonable com-munication, and no real attempt by the gov-ernment to keep the community informedabout the Asia Pacific Space Centre pro-posal, or to take them into their confidenceabout the negotiations with the Asia PacificSpace Centre people about what is proposedfor their island community.

It is no wonder that when I spoke to An-drew Smolders this evening he was meetingwith his fellow shire councillors. They haveexpressed a very strong view about the fail-ure of this government— particularly ofSenator Macdonald—to inform and involvethe community. As I say, this proposal forthe launch facility on Christmas Islandshould bring undoubted benefits. But, if

public confidence in the proposal has beenundermined by a reluctance of the govern-ment to inform and involve the community,it is little wonder that the community is con-tinually raising questions about the efficacyof the proposal, environmental issues, andother matters which arise.

We should understand that this means agreat deal to the community. Only recentlythe community were advised that CGU, theinsurer that has been operating in the com-munity, would no longer accept policies forgeneral insurance. That is an issue for asmall and remote community in the IndianOcean. They are not being well served bysome people in the business sector and it is acause of some frustration as a result.

While the government trumpets its role inthese matters and offers $100 million out of acontingency fund—not through the budget, Imight say—let me be very clear that the roadinfrastructure requirements and the need foran appropriate wharf facility to handle heavycargo on Christmas Island have been mattersthe government has been aware of for sometime—well before the budget was framed.There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever forthis $100 million not to appear in the budgetpapers. Presumably the negotiations with theAsia Pacific Space Centre had been going onfor some time, yet we are led to believe thatsome extraordinary event has led to thismoney being provided off-budget. What ex-traordinary event was there?

Serious concerns have been raised aboutenvironmental matters relating to this pro-posal, and that is an issue that should be ofconcern to us. It is an issue of concern to thecommunity on Christmas Island. Despite theobvious commercial benefits that would ac-crue to the community as a result of the de-velopment of this facility, there are signifi-cant questions yet unanswered by the gov-ernment in relation to the environmental is-sues concerned with this proposal. An articlein the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 Junethis year titled ‘Manna from the heavens aswe join space race’ refers to Mr WarrenNicholls, a freelance consultant used by theAsia Pacific Space Centre. He said that theenvironmental impact statement for the


launch centre was ‘shoddy’. He is quoted assaying:The water supply on the island is a critical issueand if there was any spill either while transportingstuff there or during the launch it could gostraight into the water supply—in which case theisland’s finished.

The article continues:Noise from rocket launches was the main threat tofragile species and a noise demonstration byAPSC was “hopeless ... just a joke”. “Where youhave so many species that are endemic to the is-land, you have to be extra careful.”

I note on a matter of the environment thatrecommendations from the Minister for Re-gional Services, Territories and Local Gov-ernment, the Minister for Industry, Scienceand Resources and the Minister for the Envi-ronment and Heritage, in accordance withsection 931 of the administrative proceduresof the Environmental Protection (Impact ofProposals) Act 1974, state that there are 65conditions attached to this proposal.

Another matter that I want to refer to justbriefly is the role that has been played by thephosphate mining company. We need tocomprehend here that this launch facility isto be built at South Point on Christmas Is-land. This is all under mining lease. The factthat the site has been established by the pro-ponents has meant that the mining companyhas had to make arrangements with theCommonwealth over this land and has had toreschedule its mining operations so that itcould mine out the areas to ensure that theywere available to the space company. Itshould be applauded for this. As I say, it iscurrently the largest employer on ChristmasIsland, employing 180 people. It has a longhistory. it is a community based organisa-tion. Those of you who have been in the par-liament for any length of time will know thatthis company was built from, and by, thecommunity after the mine was closed by aprevious government and it has been actingvery responsibly in the way in which it hasdealt with this proposal, and it is to be ap-plauded for it

We are supporting this legislation becauseit provides us with an opportunity. But it isvery important that we do not blow this op-portunity. We need to have proper regard to

the regulatory framework which we are im-posing. We need to ensure that there is alevel playing field for all the proponents in-volved in this industry and we need to ensurethat this government and the company in-volved come to their senses and ensure thatthe community of Christmas Island are prop-erly informed about what is happening inrelation to this space proposal, that their rea-sonable questions and concerns are properlyanswered and that the minister at least finallyacknowledges that he has done nothing buttreat with contempt the shire of the commu-nity of Christmas Island. He should offer togo over and take people through the issuesand respond publicly to their concerns. Andthe space consortia people should have apublic forum so that the people of ChristmasIsland can have their questions to the com-pany and the government properly respondedto. (Time expired)

Ms HOARE (Charlton) (9.52 p.m.)—Wein the opposition support the Space Activi-ties Amendment (Bilateral Agreement) Bill2001 because of the opportunities it providesfor Australia. The bill authorises the agree-ment between the government of Australiaand the government of the Russian Federa-tion on cooperation in the field of explora-tion and use of outer space for peaceful pur-poses, which was signed on 23 May thisyear. While the key provisions of the agree-ment include the protection of intellectualproperty and information, it also provides alegal and organisational framework for thetransfer of space technologies, equipmentand expertise to the Australian commercialspace launch industry.

The agreement also allows duty-freetransport of space related goods and equip-ment which will be used in projects under-taken in either Australia or Russia. Launchvehicles, satellites, scientific equipment andtelemetry and guidance equipment can cur-rently enter Australia duty free, althoughsome specialised equipment attracts an Aus-tralian duty of up to five per cent. This billprovides for the exemption of that duty. Theimplementation of duty exemption will bemade through Customs Tariff Proposal No. 5of 2001, which will be introduced duringthese winter sittings.


There are at least four companies propos-ing to establish commercial space launchfacilities in Australia. They are the Asia Pa-cific Space Station on Christmas Island, Kis-tler Aerospace Corporation at Woomera,Spacelift Australia at Woomera and the Fal-con project at Woomera. Two of these wouldmost likely be using Russian launch technol-ogy. The agreement between our two gov-ernments facilitates the release and ensurescontrol of access of the sensitive and dualuse nature of the technology involved. Themost advanced project, as we have heard,seems to be the $800 million Asia PacificSpace Centre on Christmas Island. The Aus-tralian government has said that it wouldprovide $100 million to help develop thecentre.

While this is a welcome commitment tothe Australian space industry, there havebeen concerns raised in a couple of areas. Iwill reiterate some of those concerns. It hasbeen claimed by the environmental consult-ant Warren Nicholls that the environmentalimpact statement for the planned satellitelaunch centre was shoddy. Warren Nichollswas invited by the Asia Pacific Space Centrelast year to test the environmental credentialsof the proposal. He said that the EIS neededto be redone and that it was the worst thatyou would ever come across. The main con-cerns that Mr Nicholls raised were noise andwater issues, which could prove to be prob-lems for the Christmas Islanders. He empha-sised that the water supply on the island is acritical issue and described the decimation ofthe island that would occur if there were anyspills, which would go straight into the watersupply, either while transporting the equip-ment there or during the launch. On the issueof noise, he said that many species were en-demic to the island and formed such a fragilecommunity that a rocket launch within thatcommunity could be damaging to thosepopulations. So it is clear that further envi-ronmental studies would need to be under-taken before this project went ahead.

There have also been suggestions thatthere is on oversupply in the satellite launchmarket. It has been claimed that, once fullydeveloped, the launch centre on ChristmasIsland would conduct 11 launches per year,

generating significant economic benefits,regional development, new research activityand employment. The industry, if it achievesin gaining 20 per cent of the internationallaunch market, is expected to contribute $2½billion to the balance of payments until 2010and to generate several thousand new jobsover that same period.

However, an expert has said that the fourspace launch proposals will actually have atough time making a profit. Mr Bruce Mid-dleton, the Managing Director of Asia Pa-cific Aerospace Consultants, told the ninthAustralian International Aerospace Congressthat the projected supply of commercialspace launches far exceeded estimates ofdemand over the coming decade. He said thatthe world’s seven existing commerciallaunch providers would be able to provide atotal of 685 launches into high geostationaryorbits over the decade to 2012. Althoughfigures support the supposition that eco-nomic benefits are going to be generated bythe establishment of these four projects inAustralia, experts say that it is going to bedifficult for those economic benefits to belarge and to be sustained.

The discussion in the parliament and morewidely in our communities on these initia-tives has focused on Australia’s opportuni-ties to enter an expanding high technologyand high value industry. In seeking to furtherdevelop the space industry, Australia shouldalso be looking at contributing to and par-ticipating in other international activities. Ispecifically refer to the construction of theinternational space station by NASA. Theconstruction of the international space stationis a step towards the science fiction dream ofcolonising space. The first project of coursewas the Mir space station. When it waslaunched in 1986 it was a technologicalrevolution. It was the first modern space sta-tion and the predecessor of the currentNASA-led international space station. Thereason for Australia’s involvement is to en-sure that it becomes a truly internationalspace station and not just an American spacestation. The global power of the Americanspace industry and its pursuit of a NASAdeveloped space industry contributed to thedemise of Mir. This theory was published in


a recent media article in the Sydney MorningHerald’s Good Weekend magazine of 10February this year. The article said:Mir, a decidedly Communist creation, was on theverge of a second lease of life as a capitalist en-terprise, thus threatening NASA’s ambitions foran orbital monopoly with its own space station.For Mir had a second career in the offing. It in-volved colossally wealthy tourists, Hollywoodentertainment contracts, and even a foot in theworld of Internet startups. Dennis Tito, a formerNASA engineer turned financier, had signed up tobecome MirCorp’s first tourist—at a round-tripcost of $US20 million. There was a $40 milliondeal to produce a micro-gravity version of the“reality-based” American TV show Survivor. Andthere was another high-profile, mega-rich touristin the offing: James Cameron, the director of Ti-tanic. The old Communist rattletrap was getting aserious capitalist makeover.

… … …There is a strong resemblance between Mir andthe ISS ... But it was Mir that became the world’sfirst international space station, hosting visitorsfrom more than 16 nations. Among them wasSouth Australian Andy Thomas, who spent 141days aboard the station 1998.

He said that he felt ‘a lot of fondness forMir’. He said that it was his home, that hegot to know it very well and that he got tofeel very comfortable on board it. He said:I am very lucky that I’m one of only seven NASAastronauts to have had that opportunity.

If Australia contributed to, and participatedin, the development of wider space activities,we would benefit greatly. We would not belosing our knowledge and we would not havea brain drain; we would keep people likeAndy Thomas in Australia and we would beable to use Australian technology to contrib-ute to international space activities. I comefrom a region close to the city of Newcastle,and we have a very innovative, very smartand very high technological industry base inNewcastle. Newcastle would be one of theregions that would benefit in both an eco-nomic sense and an employment sense if wewere to be more involved in some of thesespace exploration activities. The GoodWeekend article continued:... the ISS will be the most expensive governmenthousing facility ever built; its cost to full opera-tion is now set at a whopping $60 billion, more

than seven times the budget specified whenReagan first announced the project in 1984.

An article in the Sun-Herald of 5 November2000 stated:By the time it is fully assembled the InternationalSpace Station will be as big as a football field andfrom Earth it will be as bright as the planet Venus.It will orbit the Earth every hour and a half andtake 10 minutes to cross the sky.It is the greatest international scientific endeavourin history, bringing together people who wereonce Cold War enemies and 16 other nations towork towards future manned voyages to Mars andbeyond.

I am sure you would agree with me, MrDeputy Speaker, that this prospect is veryexciting and that Australia should be grasp-ing the opportunity to become involved andbe an active participant. But Australia al-ready does play a critical role in space explo-ration. The article from the Sun-Herald alsostated:Scientists at Tidbinbilla, the deep space trackingstation near Canberra, are a critical link in com-municating with 15 unmanned outer space mis-sions to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and the sunitself.

… … …NASA’s representative in Australia, Dr MiriamBaltuck, said without Australia’s dish scientiststhere would be no missions to outer space.

… … …Australia’s geographic position enables missioncontrol in the US to keep 24-hour contact with itsspacecraft as the world rotates. There are twoother dishes, one in California and another inSpain.

While we are discussing these issues in theparliament, discussions are also happeningwidely in our communities. The member forthe Northern Territory, who representsChristmas Island, where one of the proposedrocket launchers is being developed, talkedabout the discussions taking place in hiscommunity. Space exploration, space devel-opment and the possibility of space travel arecapturing the imagination of all Australians.I for one believe that Australia has the ca-pacity, the technology and the knowledge tocontribute effectively and that we must beable to benefit, both in employment and eco-nomically, from these exciting develop-


ments, which will develop even further in thevery near future.

While the opposition supports this bill andthe government’s claims about the removalof impediments to the space launch industryby the particular agreement covered in thisbill and that the creation of a competitiveenvironment should generate significantbenefits, regional development, new researchactivity and employment, I think we shouldall be aware of and continue to monitor someof those concerns and problems that mayoccur, such as environmental impacts andcommunity and societal impacts, through thedevelopment of these rocket launchers. Sowe are ever-mindful of those and continue tokeep a watchful regulatory eye on the proj-ects, and we support the bill.

Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt—Parliamen-tary Secretary to the Minister for Industry,Science and Resources) (10.06 p.m.)—Ithank all the members who have participatedin the debate tonight. Firstly, I would like towelcome the opposition’s support for theSpace Activities Bill 1998. I agree with thecomments from the member for Bonythonabout the interest, support and general enthu-siasm shown by our Russian counterparts forAustralia as a potential space launch providerwhen they were here to sign the intergov-ernmental agreement in May this year. I toohad the honour of being at the Russian em-bassy in May, with the member for Bony-thon, to help celebrate the signing of theIGA.

The signing of the agreement between theMinister for Industry, Science and Re-sources, Senator Nick Minchin, and the Di-rector-General, Mr Uri Koptev, here in Par-liament House was the start of a very specialrelationship between our two countries, and Iam sure that it is one that will continue togrow and develop. What is even more specialabout that relationship is the fact that Aus-tralia is the first country outside the RussianFederation to sign such an agreement, so it isquite significant.

As the member for Moore stated in hiscontribution to the debate tonight, the bene-fits of this agreement should not be underes-timated. The Australian space industry willdirectly benefit from the transfer of technol-

ogy. In the longer run, I believe we will seethe growth and development of Australianexpertise in many of the areas some of thespeakers have mentioned—for example,space and aerospace engineering, softwaredevelopment, payload integration, launchvehicle preparation and testing and telemetrytracking. Western Australia, particularlycommunities like Perth, will indeed be verywell placed to benefit in the long run as theAsia Pacific Space Centre grows and devel-ops. In the short term, as the member forNorthern Territory noted, places like Perthand Darwin will be very important centres ofsupply and support to Christmas Island as theAPSC launch facilities are constructed andother public capital works infrastructure isdeveloped.

However, there are a couple of issues thatI would like to address in relation to com-ments made by the member for the NorthernTerritory. He referred to allegations bycommentator Middleton with regard to mar-ket oversupply. The honourable member iscorrect in his comments that the market forlow earth orbit launches is oversupplied, butthe Christmas Island proposal—and I amsurprised he was not aware of this—is forgeostationary launches. This part of the mar-ket is quite stable. In any case, we should betaking a long-term view. Space projects takeanything from five to 10 years to get intoplace. Even in the low earth orbital launches,the current slump in the market should notdeter us from taking very much a long-termview.

Independent analysis by Pricewater-houseCoopers suggests Australia could aimto capture up to 20 per cent of the globallaunch market. That is not an insignificantvalue to the Australian economy. This sharemust be won through advantages offered inthings such as price, market access and reli-ability of launch services. Quite frankly, Ibelieve we will be able to deliver thatthrough the Christmas Island site. The fact isthat the APSC’s Aurora rocket is one of themost proven in the market, with 100 per centsuccess rate on its commercial launches.Boeing, for example, is facing problems withits Delta workhorse at the moment. There areproblems with Ariane-5, and Japan has yet to


get its H II off the ground, so this arrange-ment with the Russian Federation to use theirtechnology would certainly give us a com-petitive edge. That, together with the positionof Christmas Island, puts us right at the fore-front to grab that 20 per cent of the marketshare suggested by Pricewaterhouse.

The other issue that was raised by themember for the Northern Territory related toissues with regard to the environment. Theenvironmental impact assessment that hasbeen carried out by APSC to date has costsome $2 million and has taken some threeyears to prepare. Everything has been con-sidered, from rare and endangered fauna andflora through to the heritage sites through tosome of the mining damage that has beendone on Christmas Island. As the honourablemember rightfully said, Senator Hill setsome 65 conditions for APSC to meet withregard to environmental management, so I donot believe it is appropriate to suggest thatthis has in some way been overlooked. Thephosphate mining company on South Point ishaving to expedite its process. One thing Ithink people can be assured of is that there isabsolutely no chance—I repeat: no chance—that the development of the spaceport will inany way repeat the environmental devasta-tion of phosphate mining.

The member for the Northern Territoryalso quoted a Sydney Morning Herald articlewhich referred to Warren Nicholls as aspokesman for APSC. That is incorrect. War-ren Nicholls made some criticism of the en-vironmental assessment with regard toground water. That particular WarrenNicholls, I understand, is a former employeeassociated with the island. He was not asso-ciated with APSC. I think that needs to beclarified.

In her contribution, the member forCharlton repeated the assertion that this War-ren Nicholls was an employee of APSC.Again I say that this was not the case.Among other things, the member for Charl-ton made reference to Australia’s most fa-mous astronaut, Andy Thomas, and talkedabout brain drains— something the LaborParty has been raising in recent times. Shemay not be aware that Andy Thomas is infact being taken on as an adviser to Paul

Scully-Power, whom I recently appointed tohead an advisory group to recommendstrategies with regard to the space industry.So our two famous astronauts, Andy Thomasand Paul Scully-Power, have both comehome to Australia and are very actively in-volved in and very supportive of the processthat we are involved in with regard to gettinga fledgling industry developed in this coun-try—that is, our space industry.

The other comment I would like to makeis with regard to the comments by the mem-ber for the Northern Territory, who sug-gested that there was no consultation withthe Christmas Island community. I note thatthat comment was repeated recently bySenator Sue Mackay. I would suggest thatSenator Ian Macdonald has consulted quitewidely with the Christmas Island commu-nity. I have actually been over there meetingwith council representatives and talking on anumber of issues. We commissioned officersfrom the Department of Industry, Scienceand Resources to spend some days there lastyear in open public forums, discussing issuesrelating to the establishment of this particularindustry. The APSC put out various infor-mation sheets for the community not only inEnglish but also in Mandarin and Malay toensure that there was not any misunder-standing. So I think it is a little unfair to sug-gest that there has been absolutely no con-sultation with the community. I would sug-gest quite the contrary. We have laid ourcards on the table, and it is now up to theAustralian Labor Party to make up theirminds as to whether they are going to sup-port the APSC project in Christmas Island. Iwill be very interested to see whether or notthey are prepared to give that firm commit-ment.

Of course, the APSC project is just as im-portant for the Christmas Island communityas it is in terms of seeing Australia as a na-tion enter the world stage as a provider ofcommercial satellite delivery systems. Butthere will be long-term benefits as well. Atthe moment, Christmas Island is wholly reli-ant on phosphate mining as the driver of itseconomy and employment. Phosphate min-ing has a limited lifespan, and whenever itdoes come to an end— whether it be in five


years or 10 years time—if we do not haveanything in place, Christmas Island, from aneconomic point of view, will effectively die.This is something that has weighed heavilyon the government when looking at theAPSC, and I know how hard people such asthe Minister for Regional Services, Territo-ries and Local Government, Senator IanMacdonald, have worked to ensure the long-term economic future of Christmas Island.

The signing of the intergovernmentalagreement will also be important for othercommercial space launch proponents, such asSpacelift in Woomera, which other speakershere tonight have rightly referred to as well. Ithink that if Spacelift and Kistler succeed ingetting their respective projects up and run-ning, we will very quickly see the rebirth ofWoomera as a major rocket launch facility.When I was last in Woomera and speaking tothe range managers there, I was struck byhow much intellectual talent Australia haslost in the field of space and aerospace sincethe heyday of Woomera. But there is a newgeneration of young people out there with anincredible desire to become engaged in astrong and vibrant home-grown space andaerospace industry. Young James Moody isone person who springs to mind. JamesMoody is heavily associated with the FedSatproject and has an incredible amount of en-ergy, enthusiasm and vision for the future ofspace and aerospace in Australia. It may takeonly one commercial launch proponent to getup and running for us to start to see new lifebreathed progressively back into interest inAustralia in space and aerospace activities,and that can only be good for Australia.

The Space Activities Amendment (Bilat-eral Agreement) Bill 2001 gives effect tocertain aspects of the agreement between thegovernment of the Russian Federation andthe government of Australia on cooperationin the field of exploration and the use ofouter space for peaceful purposes. Passage ofthis bill is necessary before the agreementmay enter into force. The bill amends theSpace Activities Act 1998. The bill creates anew part, part 5A, to provide a frameworkfor the implementation of specified spacecooperation agreements and includes a part5A power for the Governor-General to make

regulations for the purpose of implementingcertain aspects of the agreement.

The agreement was signed on Wednesday,23 May 2001. The agreement provides a le-gal and organisational framework for thetransfer to Australia of sophisticated launchvehicle technology, information and otherspace related technologies. It will also fa-cilitate Australian access to Russian techni-cal expertise and enhance collaboration be-tween our countries in scientific research andtechnology development. This agreement, asI said earlier, is a milestone in Australian-Russian cooperation and is a symbol of Aus-tralia’s increasing engagement in interna-tional space activities. The agreement is es-sential for those launch projects that willutilise Russian space technology, in particu-lar the Asia Pacific Space Centre projectproposed for Christmas Island and theSpacelift project proposed for Woomera.

Consistent with the government’s policyof promoting the development of a commer-cial space industry in Australia, the agree-ment was framed with a view to encouragingAustralian companies and other organisa-tions to participate in the agreement andhence access its benefits. The new regula-tion-making power provides a mechanism toenable both private and public sector organi-sations to access its benefits. Participation byorganisations will be on a completely volun-tary basis. Where organisations choose toaccess its benefits, however, organisationsmust also accept certain responsibilities.

In accordance with the regulations madeunder this new power, the Minister for In-dustry, Science and Resources will be able tonominate organisations to participate in theagreement, subject to the agreement of theRussian government. This authorisation willbe conditional on organisations satisfyingcertain conditions that will be set out inregulations made under this power. Theseconditions are necessary to ensure thatauthorised organisations act consistently withthe obligations that the Commonwealth hasundertaken. These conditions will includerequiring suitable arrangements to be inplace in respect of each project and may ad-dress such matters as intellectual property,protection of physical property, liability,


transmission of scientific and technical data,and dispute settlement procedures. More de-tail is provided in the explanatory memoran-dum to this bill.

In summary, passage of this bill will en-able the Commonwealth to nominate privateorganisations to voluntarily access the bene-fits of the agreement, subject to certain pre-conditions being satisfied. Passage of thisbill will also ensure that Australia fulfils itsobligations under the agreement, and passageis necessary for the agreement to enter intoforce. The agreement, once it is in force, willfacilitate the transfer to Australia of sophisti-cated space related technology and technicalexpertise, and it will enhance collaborationbetween Australia and the Russian Federa-tion in scientific research and technologydevelopment.



moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch) read a

third time.ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Mr Entsch) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.

Redden, Monsignor VinceMr MURPHY (Lowe) (10.25 p.m.)—Last

Sunday, my wife Adriana and I had theprivilege of attending the celebration of theEucharist to mark the 40th anniversary of theordination of Monsignor Vince Redden, Par-ish Priest of St Mark’s Catholic Church,Drummoyne. The celebration was a greattribute to a humble and very popular parishpriest. The congregation was vast and in-cluded Monsignor Redden’s parents andother family members, as well as members ofthe clergy, local parishioners and manyfriends of Monsignor Redden. During theEucharist we all prayed for Monsignor Red-den. Our prayer read:Monsignor Vince, we thank you for selflesslyleading and challenging us in our Christian mis-sion here at St Mark’s. We pray that God willalways be with you, sustaining and challengingyou in your ministry. May you be faithful to God

through the people who touch your life. May yoube energised by God’s love and always be con-scious of our love, support and prayers for you.We thank you for all that you have been to us andpray that your ministry continues in our midst.

During Monsignor Redden’s homily, hementioned the dwindling number of voca-tions to the priesthood in Australia and calledfor more vocations. He observed that hemight be the last parish priest of St Mark’sChurch—an observation that struck the heartof all of us. The time has come when thedevotion to the sacrament of holy orders isreaching rock-bottom. This is particularlyprevalent in Australia, while in many othercountries there is a spectacular resurgence inreligious vocations of all kinds.

The significance for Australia is profound.Australia’s legal, administrative and juris-prudential systems are based on solid Chris-tian ethics. Indeed, the very notion of the ruleof law, the doctrine of universalism—that is,one person, one law—and a host of othercornerstones of jurisprudence and justice aregrounded in our Christian ethos. Therefore,the decline in the number of Christian voca-tions marks an adverse trend away from thevery foundation of our democracy. With thedecline of Christian vocations comes the ero-sion of universalism, the erosion of the ruleof law, the erosion of the natural law, theerosion of natural justice, and the erosion ofjudicial review. In this House we know thatcultural, legal and moral relativism are be-coming increasingly more prevalent in thelaws we make today.

Monsignor Redden’s call for more voca-tions, whatever one’s religion, needs all thesupport we can give. Let us strive for therestoration of those little republics of churchthat enshrine the critical link between moral-ity and law. Let us deny the threat of agnos-ticism, with its lie in denying transcendentaltruth and, with it, the very foundation uponwhich our democracy so critically depends.Let us preserve our cultural, moral and po-litical heritage that makes Australia one ofthe most desired places on earth to live.

Relativism, consequentialism and liberal-ism are the very roots of morally inconsistentlaw-making. If we do not preserve ourChristian cultural legacy, we will lose it in


favour of another matrix, whether it is analternative theistic belief or whether it is theworship of ego (liberalism), money (materi-alism), the state (nationalism) or some othermorally erroneous ideology. Let us work forthe preservation of our Christian legacy andencourage, ever more vigorously, teachinginstitutions to teach only truth. In so doing,we will play our part in ensuring that voca-tions thrive, thus preserving the moral rubricof our political and legal system which is soessential for the practical implementation ofmorality, and we will realise the ideals ofMonsignor Vince Redden.

Education: Schools FundingMs GAMBARO (Petrie) (10.29 p.m.)—I

rise tonight to speak about the considerabledebate of late about the federal government’seducation funding policy to government orstate schools and non-government or privateschools. Central to the government’s policyon this issue is the belief that all parentsshould be able to choose the school theywant their children to attend, whether it be astate or private school. Every Australian stu-dent, therefore, should be entitled to haveaccess to quality teachers and resources. TheHoward government believes that there ispublic good in providing public funding forevery student in Australia. It is for this rea-son that the federal government has fundedQueensland’s Schools of Excellence, such asthe one at Redcliffe State High School, to thetune of $10 million and the Quality TeacherProgram to the tune of $3.7 million. PremierBeattie announced both of these initiatives ashis own in the Queensland budget, and theHoward government funds both of them.

Although school funding in Australia is ashared responsibility between the Common-wealth and state governments, it is the stategovernments that are responsible for themajority of public funding for governmentschools and the Commonwealth for non-government schools. The current campaignby the Queensland Teachers Union pointsmore to its political agenda than to any emo-tive argument on the issue of education.Commonwealth spending in Queensland’sstate schools has increased by 52 per centsince 1996. In comparison, the Beattie Laborgovernment increased their state education

budget by less than one per cent in the 2000budget and by only approximately five percent in the current budget.

Unfortunately, the QTU hardly uttered aword against Mr Beattie while mounting anexpensive campaign against the federal gov-ernment and their increased funding forQueensland’s state schools. The QTU isspending big on campaigning against theHoward government but it is failing to ac-knowledge the complete funding picture. It isnot only to its detriment that it is doing this,but also to the detriment of every child inevery school in Queensland.

Many in the Catholic education system arefeeling very isolated by the QTU’s segrega-tion and reinforcement of the ‘them and us’mentality. The QTU runs the risk of secular-ising the education argument by their ownpolitical agenda and quest to distort the truth.Parish schools that will benefit from thisfunding are being labelled as elitist becausethe QTU chooses, in the best interests of itspolitical agenda, to group private schools asone, without considering the whole issue.Parents choose to send their children to dif-ferent schools for a number of different rea-sons. For my parents, choosing to send mysiblings and me to a Catholic school was partof being Italian and Catholic. My parentsworked long and hard so that we could havea Catholic education because we valued that.The QTU wants to punish parents like minefor that choice, and that is unfair.

There are around 430,000 students en-rolled in state schools in Queensland andaround 307,000 in private schools. Legisla-tion caps the funding to non-governmentschools so that the most that a non-government school can receive is 70 per centof the cost to educate a student at a stateschool. Private schools serving the mostneedy communities will receive funding in2004 of $4,368 for a primary school studentand $5,721 for each secondary student. Pri-vate schools serving wealthy communitieswill receive in 2004 only $855 for each pri-mary school student and $1,120 for everysecondary student. By comparison, in theyear 2004 the total funding that the stateschools will receive per student will be$8,172.


State schools across Australia enrol 69 percent of students and receive 78 per cent ofthe total funding pie. In comparison, privateschools enrol 31 per cent of students andreceive 22 per cent of the funding pie. Indollar terms, federal funding to state schoolsacross Queensland will result in $440 millionfor state school students in this financialyear.

The current campaign by the QTU doesnot consider the total funding picture andimplies that the Howard government isshowing favouritism to private schools. Thatis not the legislation I supported; the legisla-tion I supported in the parliament providesall Australian students with better opportuni-ties and better outcomes from education,whether it is at a state or a Catholic school. Itinjects funding into improving literacy andnumeracy levels and promoting excellence inboth students and teachers. And that is whateducation is about: it is skilling our childrentoday for tomorrow’s future.

BasslinkMr SIDEBOTTOM (Braddon) (10.35

p.m.)—Tonight I would like to speak aboutthe exciting national energy project,Basslink. This is the proposed underseapower cable across Bass Strait and the newoverhead powerlines that will link Tasma-nia’s electricity grid with the national gridthrough Reeves Beach in Victoria to LoyYang. The rationale is that it will allow thetrade in electricity between Tasmania and thenew electricity market. Victoria and the otherstates that are part of the NEM will be able toexport electricity to Tasmania and, con-versely and importantly of course for Tasma-nia, it will also allow the export of renewablehydro-electricity from Tasmania into theNEM. This $500 million capital project willprovide the technological basis for an en-tirely new export energy industry by allow-ing up to 600 megawatts of Tasmanian en-ergy to be exported into the national grid.

Political critics of Basslink disparaginglyargue that it will exist to run Victoria’s air-conditioners in summer and import Victo-ria’s dirty energy at other times. What theyforget to add is that as Tasmania’s renewableenergy resources are developed the export ofclean, green energy will far outweigh any

imports and that any impact of Basslink willbe greenhouse positive for Australia. It isestimated that when the full wind resource inTasmania is developed it will be able to cutgreenhouse gas emissions in other states by9.1 million tonnes a year, or take theequivalent of two million cars off the road ingreenhouse terms.

Simply, Tasmania will have the capacityto export a surplus of its new energy whenthe demand is highest in Victoria, for exam-ple, at the same time when Tasmanian de-mand for hydro is in a summer trough.Likewise, Tasmania will be able to import upto 300 megawatts of Victorian energy andminimise the use of support facilities such asBell Bay. In Tasmania, the employment ef-fects will involve an estimated 257 jobs inthe construction phase and 940 jobs in otherindustries by 2010, while the additional in-come generated in Tasmania is estimated toamount to about $110 million by 2010.There are also expected to be lower energycosts due to competition.

Basslink will pave the way for greatercompetition among energy suppliers, whichwill drive energy and telecommunicationsprices down. Indeed, accompanying theelectricity cable is a fibre-optic telecommu-nications cable. Reliable Tasmanian sourcesof renewable, clean energy will aid Victoriaand South Australia in their attempts to se-cure reliable energy supplies during peakdemand periods. The presence of Tasmania’srenewable energy should have the effect ofdriving down peak energy prices in theNEM.

An important spin-off from Basslink is theopportunity it creates for energy diversifica-tion in Tasmania. I have mentioned beforethe synergy of wind and water energy andthe availability of natural gas, which will seeTasmania move from being energy deficientto having a surplus, offering investors in ourstate a mixed energy option, unlike the pres-ent and the past. Basslink will offer the na-tion an improved environmental option.Basslink, in conjunction with wind power,will provide 40 per cent of the nation’s re-newable energy resources in a renewableenergy market worth $3 billion over the next10 years.


Basslink has its critics, so it is importantthat fact is not replaced with fiction, doom-sayers and outright scaremongering. Con-trary to some of the misinformation beingput out, there will be no restrictions on fish-ing in Bass Strait, magnetic fields will notsend sailors off course, the cable is trenchedand will carry DC rather than AC, and therewill be minute quantities of chlorine givenoff at the anodes at either end but with noenvironmental impact. Indeed, concentra-tions will not even reach the level of chlorin-ated drinking water. Basslink will droughtproof Tasmania because it will allow windenergy to complement our existing hydrocapacity, stretched as it is.

Rightly, there are concerns for the riverineeffects which follow the conversion of theGreat Lake and Gordon storages from baseto peak load. Hydro Tasmania has spentabout $2 million assessing this prospect,identifying the Gordon power scheme, Poat-ina and the King River as needing specialattention. These water systems are alreadysubject to the impact of change in flows andHydro Tasmania believes medial measures,such as coffer dams and better management,can minimise any additional impact causedby the hydro system being called on to meetpeak power demand in Melbourne, for ex-ample. Likewise there are concerns thatTasmania will be left short of energy withpeak demand from Victoria. However, be-cause NEM rules prevent power from beingexported from a region until its local re-quirements have been met, Tasmania will notexperience blackouts during periods of highVictorian demand.

Dunkley Electorate: Small BusinessMr BILLSON (Dunkley) (10.40 p.m.)—I

would like to join the member for Braddon incongratulating the Tasmanians on the op-portunity that the renewable energy marketoffers their state. It is a marketplace wewould not have if it were not for the Howardgovernment introducing the renewable en-ergy certificates which will see, from mem-ory, about 9,500 kilowatt hours of renewableenergy available in the marketplace within adecade. That is enough renewable energy topower four million households. That energyproduction will be twice the size of the

Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Schemeand is a great story for renewable energy andenvironment management in Australia. Icongratulate the member for Braddon for hisinterest.

I rise tonight though to talk about thesmall business community in Dunkley.Dunkley by the bay, that sunny communitythat I represent on Port Phillip Bay, had thepleasure of being visited by the Minister forSmall Business, Mr Ian Macfarlane. I ampleased that the shadow minister is at thetable to hear this, because it was a great dayon Friday when Minister Macfarlane camedown to Dunkley. We had two sessions ofbonding with the small business community,where we listened to their concerns andworked through issues that were affecting thevibrant small business community in theelectorate of Dunkley. There are about 8,500small businesses in the electorate of Dunk-ley, all of them beavering away. It is ahorsepower of enterprise and innovation inour economy, and it is a crucial part of theDunkley economy because we do not haveany major single employers. There are a lotof family businesses and small to mediumenterprises making a go of things and en-joying the market and improved investmentclimate that the Howard government hashelped to create.

It was a good chance to hear first-handfrom the small business community whatwas concerning them. It is interesting that acommon theme in Victoria seems to be thatmost of them talk about the unions runningthe Bracks government and the Bracks gov-ernment being a fully owned subsidiary ofTrades Hall. There is a bit of a worry aboutthe industrial climate, and there are concernsabout WorkCover premiums and how theyhave escalated quite dramatically. When thesmall business people make the rare claim,they are greeted with the attitude that theyhave introduced some sort of disease intotheir community; they are not well receivedwhen those concerns come up. Many of themgreeted with horror talk that the Labor Partywould, if elected, raise the superannuationguarantee to 15 per cent. These were com-mon themes that were striking fear and terrorinto many in the small business community


and were yet another reminder of why, if youhave a small business, you are employed in asmall business or you would like to see smallbusiness continue to drive our economy andadd to the 830,000 jobs that have been cre-ated since the Howard government waselected, the worst thing you could do wouldbe to trust Labor with the interests of thesmall business community.

Of the specific issues that came out, onewhich was most interesting was about agebarriers to accessing finance. Noel Bowman,who runs a terrific business down our waymaking electrical supply equipment, has justsecured the contract to make sure the Collinsclass submarines are properly powered whenthey are not at sea. Bowman ChargemasterPty Ltd is a great local business. Noel hasseen many a summer—that may be the bestway I can describe it—and he recounted tothe minister and me how his age was a bar-rier to banks providing him with finance—not that there was any question about thevitality of his business, not that there werenot forward orders, not that there was not agreat deal of enterprise going on in hisbusiness; the issue was just his age. Youwonder to what extent it is reasonable forbanks to be withholding finance for smallbusinesses that meet all the requirements.The risk profile of Noel’s business is veryattractive for the banks, but still they point tohis age as a reason not to provide finance,and that is something we need to tackle.

Even domain names were mentioned. Iknow that some clever souls are runningaround buying up the domain names ofmembers of parliament in the hope that wewill spend some big money buying ournames back for our own web sites in thelead-up to the election. But the point wasmade that a number of small businesses arenot able to access their own domain namesbecause someone has bought them in ad-vance and that the business name registrationand protection that is available does not ex-tend to domain names—and there are op-portunities to do things about that.

Finally, there was a general concern thatthe risks, the entrepreneurship, the great vig-our, and the opportunities that are created bysmall business are not properly recognised. I

suggested that maybe a national ‘SmallBusiness Day’ might be a good idea, whenwe could pay tribute to all those people in-volved in the small business community whoare driving our economy forward, drivinginnovation and creating the quality of lifethat we enjoy. Maybe that is an idea that theshadow minister at the table, the member forHunter, can take on board. There is otherwork to be done in the area of bankruptcylaw reform, where manager receivers tend tosuck out whatever assets are left in a busi-ness and then say, ‘Thank you very much;we’ve done our job.’ There were even ques-tions about contracts let over the last sixmonths and whether being paid for them rep-resents a preferential creditor. There wasplenty of good feedback—and thank you foryour tolerance, Mr Speaker. (Time expired)

Centrelink: Carer PaymentMr COX (Kingston) (10.45 p.m.)—When

the Howard government changed the law forassessing eligibility for carer payment, theLabor Party warned that many families thatneed carer payment would not receive it.Tonight I want to talk about one such case,the Borg family. Their daughter, aged 10,suffers from epilepsy, global delays and anintellectual disability. She has the develop-ment age of a three- to four-year-old. Cen-trelink rejected their application for carerpayment. When they sought a review, thedecision was affirmed by an authorised re-view officer, who noted that their daughtersuffers a severe multiple disability but doesnot meet the legislative definition for a ‘pro-foundly disabled child’. The review officerdid, however, note that caring for the child isa full-time job.

On appeal, the Social Security AppealsTribunal made the following findings of fact:the child requires care during the night atleast twice between 10.00 p.m. and 6 a.m.;the child is up around 5.30 a.m. or 6 a.m. andis lively, energetic, messy, unable to under-stand the consequences of her actions, andhighly vocal in her preferences; her mother isunable to work outside the home due to carerequirements that include assisting her atschool, and attending meetings to do with hercare; and the child needs assistance withfeeding, toileting, dressing, hygiene, bathing,


safety, and school work. In short, the physi-cal and time demands of care at home, in-stead of in an institution, are enormous.

To qualify for a carer payment—in addi-tion to her mother having to get up on two ormore occasions between 10.00 p.m. and 6a.m. each night—the child would have tosatisfy two more of the following conditions:receive all food and fluids by tube; have atracheostomy; use a ventilator for at leasteight hours a day; not be able to stand with-out support; have faecal incontinence dayand night; or have a terminal condition re-quiring palliative care, not active treatment.Her mother points out that, with the excep-tion of faecal incontinence and palliativecare, if the child had any of these conditionsshe would actually be easer to manage.

The tribunal also considered the legisla-tive requirements for carer payment where aperson provides constant care for two ormore disabled children aged under 16. TheBorgs receive carer allowance in relation totheir 12-year-old son, who has learning andcognitive difficulties. He requires assistancewith his homework on a daily basis, supervi-sion of twice-daily exercises for his gait dif-ficulty, and orthotic treatment; and he re-ceives assistance from a private tutor for twohours a week. The legislation stipulates thatthe level of care required to care for twochildren is at least equivalent to that requiredby one profoundly disabled child. The tribu-nal considered that both children are disabledbut not sufficiently to be within the criteria toreceive carer payment. The tribunal thereforeaffirmed the decision to reject the applicationfor a carer payment on the ground that it wasa correct application of the law. The tribunalconcluded that, despite the intensive careprovided by Mrs Borg, her situation does notcome within that very narrowly specified inthe legislation.

It is apparent that the legislative require-ments for a carer payment have been drawnwith a view to administrative simplicity andnot to reflect the demands on carers. Therigidity and lack of discretion preclude somepeople who would require full-time profes-sional care if it were not for the care pro-vided by a parent or carer. This is particu-larly the case where the disability requires

predominantly functional care—for example,those with an episodic impact.

A summary of submissions to the Reviewof the Measure to Extend Carer PaymentEligibility to Carers of Children with a Pro-found Disability, undertaken in 1999, showsthat the criteria are ‘excessive and undulylimiting’, ‘restrictive’, ‘not broadly repre-sentative’ and ‘do not adequately recognisethe care needs of a variety of disabilities’.One submission suggested that the criteriafor two or more children are contradictory.There is no consideration given to the extrafunctional care requirements of two disabledchildren; the emphasis is still on the medicalcare requirement in that both children be-tween them still have to meet three criteria.

The review raised six proposals to refinethe eligibility criteria and, to my knowledge,the government has adopted only four. Thetwo proposals not yet adopted are to recog-nise children who require high level supervi-sion and to allow eligibility to be granted ona discretionary basis. The Borg case demon-strates why those two recommendations needto be adopted. The Borg family would like toform a group for people in similar circum-stances. If you are in a similar situation,phone Peter Borg on (08) 8381 5933 or con-tact him by email on [email protected].

Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

NOTICESThe following notices were given:Mr Kelvin Thomson to present a bill for

an act to amend the Superannuation Guaran-tee (Administration) Act 1992.

Mr Mossfield to move:That this House:

(1) notes that:(a) Western Sydney is one of the fastest

growing regions in Australia with a highproportion of young people;

(b) currently there is a negative perceptionof young people in Western Sydney,which is a mistaken view since WesternSydney is no different to any other re-gion with regard to youth problems andyouth achievements;


(c) there needs to be public recognition ofthe achievements of young people whichis linked to high self esteem and mini-mises anti-social behaviour;

(d) lack of access to educational facilities,especially information technology, hasresulted in an imbalance of academicachievements; and

(e) there is insufficient provision of com-munity and recreational facilities foryoung people in Western Sydney;

(2) urges the Government to:(a) research methods of providing adequate

access to computer facilities to the dis-advantaged in Western Sydney in orderto close the digital divide; and

(b) to provide urgently needed youth com-munity facilities in the Western Sydneyarea to address the social needs of youngpeople; and

(3) acknowledges the work of the BlacktownYouth Orientation in drafting this motion andbringing these issues to light.

Mr Danby to move:That this House:

(1) expresses its condemnation of human rightsand civil liberties violations perpetrated bythe Government of Zimbabwean PresidentRobert Mugabe, including:(a) political and other extrajudicial killings

perpetrated by or with the assistance ofsecurity forces;

(b) politically motivated disappearancesperpetrated by ZANU-PF supporterswith the tacit assent of the Governmentand security forces;

(c) torture and other cruel, inhuman or de-grading treatment or punishment perpe-trated by security forces;

(d) arbitrary arrest, detention or exile perpe-trated by police;

(e) denial of fair public trial and refusal toabide by judicial decisions;

(f) arbitrary Government interference withprivacy, family, sexuality, home, corre-spondence and property;

(g) restrictions on freedom of speech andpress;

(h) restrictions on freedom of peaceful as-sembly and association;

(i) restrictions on freedom of religion;(j) restrictions on freedom of movement

within Zimbabwe, on foreign travel,emigration and repatriation;

(k) infringements of political rights, andparticularly, the right of people to changetheir government; and

(l) discrimination based on sex, race, relig-ion, disability and sexual preference; and

(2) calls on the Government to:(a) make the strongest possible representa-

tions to Robert Mugabe in respect ofhuman rights violations while he is inAustralia to attend the CommonwealthHeads of Government meetings thisyear; and

(b) exhort other nations of the Common-wealth to make the strongest possiblerepresentations to Robert Mugabe in re-spect of human rights violations.


QUESTIONS ON NOTICEThe following answers to questions were circulated:

Health: Alzheimer’s Disease(Question No. 2170)

Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 27 November 2000:What facilities, programs and resources are available to assist the sufferers of Alzheimer’s disease andtheir carers in the electoral Division of Barton.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop—The answer to the honourable member’s question, in accordancewith advice provided to me, is as follows:In the electorate Division of Barton the Commonwealth Government currently funds:

• the Warina Day Care Centre in Kogarah and the South East Sydney Carer Respite at Bexleyto provide dementia-specific respite services under the National Respite for Carers Program;

• the Benevolent Community and In-Home Flexible Respite – Southern City to provide serv-ices for people with dementia and challenging behaviour; and

• the South East Sydney Carer Respite Service, whose services include respite for people withdementia.

People in the Barton electorate can make a free call on 1800 059 059 for connection to the closest CarerRespite Centre, which is located at Bexley.Many services in the Home and Community Care (HACC) Program, which is 60% funded by theCommonwealth Government, can provide services for people with dementia. Examples in the Bartonelectorate include:

• Greenwood Cottage Day Centre for Older People;• the St George Live At Home Service (a community options project); and• the St George Multicultural Day Care and Centre Based Meals Program.

Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Noise(Question No. 2303)

Mr Murphy asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:Did he say that Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport would not be sold until the noise problems at theairport had been solved.

Mr Howard—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:The Government has addressed the aircraft noise issue by providing for a substantially more equitablesharing of noise compared with the arrangements in place prior to March 1996.

Roads: National Highway Funding(Question No. 2323)

Mr Price asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 Febru-ary 2001:(1) Since the election of the Howard government in 1996, (a) what sum has been spent each year on

the National Highway and (b) for what projects.(2) For those projects, what are the (a) anticipated completion dates, (b) State contributions, (c) Fed-

eral contributions and (d) total project cost.(3) (a)What are the Federal electorates which have all, or part of, the projects in them and (b) what is

the party affiliation of the member representing that electorate.(4) Which projects have attracted a toll.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) (a)The amount spent each year on the National Highway from 1996-97 to 1999-2000 is as fol-

lows:

1996-97 ($m) 1997-98 ($m) 1998-99 ($m) 1999-00 ($m) 2000-01 (est) ($m)710.48 702.54 745.48 631.62 690.75


(2) (b) States do not contribute to the cost of projects on the National Highway which have beenapproved for Federal funding.

(3) (b) The Department does not keep records on the party affiliation of the Member representingthe electorate in which National Highway projects are funded.

(4) There are currently no tolls on the National Highway. However, the Government has announcedthat the Western Sydney Orbital will be partly funded by a toll.

(1) (b), (2) (a) (c) and (d) and (3) (a)The following table sets out for each of the years 1996-97 to 2000-01 each project funded, the estimated cost, the amount spent, the anticipated completion date andthe electorate in which the project is located.

Cost 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

2000-01

(to 30 May)

Anticipated

Completion

Date Electorate

$m $m $m $m $m $m

NEW SOUTH WALES

Sydney Urban

Cumberland Hwy-Widen to 6

lanes

30.10 1.21 0.45 3.40 7.5 5.73 2002 Prospect

Sydney Orbital Route, precon-

struction works

300.00 2.00 5.62 7.32 12.14 9.75 2007 Macarthur, Mitchell,

Greenway

Elizabeth Drive east of Mamre Rd

to Badgerys Creek Rd

7.70 0.65 0.10 Completed Macarthur, Mitchell,

Greenway

F3 Freeway

Driver Aid Scheme 22.60 1.10 1.64 0.81 Not known Robertson

F3 to Branxton link 332.00 0.08 0.09 1.10 0.35 Not known Hunter

Widening to 6 lanes between

Wahroonga & Kariong - study

0.50 0.50 Completed Robertson, Berowra

Ourimbah-Kangy Angy 54.95 12.78 19.51 2.34 Completed Dobell

Hume Highway

Campbelltown Access ramps 7.00 0.05 0.05 Not known Werriwa

Mittagong bypass rectification 30.00 0.36 1.04 2002 Macarthur

Cullarin Deviation 21.57 0.05 0.01 0.03 Completed Hume

Goulburn Byp-Ph 6 27.12 0.08 Completed Hume

Tarcutta Range Duplication 62.60 0.60 -0.01 0.04 Completed Hume

Yass Bypass 40.44 0.33 0.17 Completed Hume

Concrete pavements (Sth of Yass) 15.04 0.13 Completed Hume

Sheahans Bridge EIS 8.65 0.53 2.74 3.91 Completed Hume

Kyeamba Hill to Kyeamba Gap 16.08 0.01 Completed Hume

Bookham Bypass 80.15 1.00 12.23 9.69 27.80 23.74 2001 Hume

Coolac Bypass EIS 100.00 0.50 0.28 -0.11 0.93 0.44 Post 2004-05 Hume

Coppabella-Reedy Creek 15.58 0.01 Completed Hume

Jugiong Bypass 83.55 1.010 0.19 0.05 0.05 0.09 Completed Hume

Albury upgrade 187.0 1.00 3.83 7.18 5.15 3.63 Post 2004-05 Farrer

New England Highway

Wilburtree St to Scott Road,

Tamworth; reconstruction &

widening

3.45 1.60 1.68 -0.02 Completed New England


Cost 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

2000-01

(to 30 May)

Anticipated

Completion

Date Electorate

$m $m $m $m $m $m

Armidale Bypass 8.65 0.09 Completed New England

Beresfield West – signalisation of

intersection between Weakleys

Drive and Thorton Road

0.70 0.41 Completed New England

Devils Pinch North of Armidale 18.80 0.22 0.38 0.58 2004 New England

Rose Valley Deviation 12.06 0.20 1.28 7.79 2002 New England

Liverpool Range 27.44 3.38 -0.01 0.52 .04 Completed Hunter

Belford Forrest Deviation 30.70 4.00 10.84 9.14 0.14 -0.07 Completed Hunter

Muswellbrook Bypass 0.50 0.04 0.14 0.09 Post 2004-05 Hunter

John Renshaw Drive Interchange 10.68 3.03 1.87 -0.03 Completed Hunter

Leneghans Drive - Weakleys

Drive

61.97 6.21 17.15 9.53 0.02 Completed Hunter

McDougalls Hill – Rixs Creek

Bridge

0.23 0.09 -0.05 Completed Paterson

Upgrade Intersection Anderson

Drive

1.50 0.09 -0.12 Completed Paterson

Duval Creek realignment 7.70 0.09 Post 2004-05

Newell Highway

Moree Bypass 30.00 0.03 0.11 0.30 0.32 0.73 Gwydir

Coonabarabran Bypass - Planning 34.00 .08 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.07 Gwydir

Coonabarabran Bridge 2.24 1.00 0.03 Completed Gwydir

Sturt Highway

Yanga Crk bridge, east of Bal-

ranald

3.01 0.06 Completed Farrer

Federal Highway

Lake George 118.38 40.00 27.00 24.31 2.59 0.27 Completed Hume

ACT Border-Sutton 42.58 0.53 0.53 11.33 22.01 7.24 Completed Hume

Barton Highway

Murrumbateman Bypass - Plan-

ning

40.00 0.11 0.03 0.17 0.15 0.25 Complete Hume

Asset Preservation 147.54 140.79 152.38 124.76 109.53 Ongoing Various

TOTAL NEW SOUTH WALES 229.08 243.84 245.40 210.51 172.19

VICTORIA

Western Ring Road

Airport Section 145.00 35.23 0.78 0.67 -1.20 -0.06 Completed Maribyrnong

Broadmeadows Section 1.50 0.01 Completed Calwell

Maribyrnong Section 104.10 0.40 0.91 1.11 0.18 0.12 Completed Maribyrnong

Extension to Edgars Road 80.00 19.38 18.62 16.60 0.91 -1.11 Completed Scullin, Wills, Calwell


Cost 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

2000-01

(to 30 May)

Anticipated

Completion

Date Electorate

$m $m $m $m $m $m

New alignment from Robinsons

Rd to Western Ring Road

0.28 0.15 Completed Burke, Gellibrand

Safety improvement works on the

Western/Metropolitan Ring Road

12.00 1.00 Jun 2003 Calwell, Gellibrand,

Wills, Lalor, Maribyr-

nong,

0.00

Hume Highway

Albury/Wodonga Bypass - Pre-

construction Works

6.00 4.00 0.72 0.08 Not known Indi

Donnybrook Road grade separa-

tion - planning

0.20 0.11 0.04 0.02 July 2001 McEwen

Craigieburn link to the WRR -

Planning

1.30 0.20 0.75 0.22 0.03 Completed McEwen, Scullin

Craigieburn & Beveridge – access

control – planning

0.11 0.10 0.01 July 2001 McEwen

Western Highway

Shoulder Sealing 10.20 0.07 0.07 Completed Burke, Ballarat, Wan-

non

Widening 1.19 1.00 0.19 Completed Burke, Ballarat, Wan-

non

Widening west of Kaniva 2.70 1.26 1.42 -0.01 Completed Mallee

Overtaking lanes between Stawell

& Horsham

1.05 0.69 -0.06 Completed Ballarat, Mallee

Melton to Bacchus Marsh - Plan-

ning

4.30 Completed Burke

Ballarat Bypass 49.41 3.16 1.54 0.02 0.41 0.21 Completed Ballarat

Bridge Widening at Fiery Creek 0.40 0.40 Completed Ballarat, Wannon

Leigh Creek to Woodmans Hill

Planning

1.61 0.89 -0.06 0.25 -0.81 1.33 Completed Ballarat

Re-alignment of Western High-

way to WRR - Planning

0.95 0.22 0.14 0.01 -0.01 Completed Lalor, Burke

Overtaking lanes from Stawell to

SA Border

3.00 0.78 1.05 1.20 -0.03 Completed Ballarat, Mallee

Leakes Rd Interchange – planning

study

0.13 .08 0.04 July 2001 Burke

Widening Lillimur to SA Border 3.90 2.50 0.22 .58 0.53 Completed Mallee

Armstrong rail underpass 12.90 0.15 2004 Ballarat

Deer Park to Hopkins Rd – grade

separation

13.10 3.60 6.63 2002 Burke

Widening and rehab west of

Dimboola

22.00 5.33 6.62 Jan 2002 Mallee

Widening and rehab Kiata to

Nhill

19.20 7.10 May 2002 Mallee

Goulburn Valley Highway

Strathmerton Deviation - Plan-

ning

0.50 0.29 0.21 1.32 Completed Murray

Broken River Bridge 8.05 2.06 5.99 -0.18 Completed Murray

Overtaking lanes North of Shep-

parton

3.53 1.59 1.48 -0.11 Completed Murray


Cost 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

2000-01

(to 30 May)

Anticipated

Completion

Date Electorate

$m $m $m $m $m $m

Shepparton Bypass - Planning 4.96 0.01 1.05 0.91 late 2001 Murray

Moorilim to Kialla West - Plan-

ning

0.52 0.16 -0.03 Completed Indi, Murray

Hume to Nagambie & Murchison

East - Planning

4.48 1.50 1.68 -0.68 1.17 -0.01 Completed McEwen

Overtaking lanes near Strathmer-

ton

1.28 1.28 -0.08 0.18 Completed Murray

Hume to Nagambie duplication 52.80 7.53 12.86 19.31 7.91 Completed McEwen

Murchison East deviation 94.30 5.0 6.32 2003 McEwen

Bridge strengthening works. 2.11 2.11 Completed Various

Sturt Highway

Widening & Shoulder Sealing 2.86 1.23 1.30 0.28 0.05 Completed Mallee

Widening Mildura to SA Border 1.50 0.02 1.2 Completed Mallee

Mildura development planning

study

0.10 0.10 2002 Mallee


TOTAL VICTORIA 104.38 79.57 82.82 57.65 60.18

QUEENSLAND

Bruce Highway

Pound Creek Bridge 0.39 0.06 0.04 .01 0.02 Completed Kennedy

Woolcock Street Duplication 16.48 2.86 10.21 2.49 .04 -0.09 Completed Herbert

Townsville to Cairns -

Widen/Rehab

25.30 4.41 2.08 0.22 5.09 1.03 Completed Herbert, Kennedy,

Leichhardt

Edmonton duplication 22.60 6.06 9.09 6.30 -0.99 0.52 Completed Leichhardt

Rockhampton to Townsville -

Overtaking lanes

3.25 0.33 -0.01 Completed Dawson, Herbert, Ca-

pricornia


Widen/Rehab

46.90 4.68 7.20 -0.84 2.92 3.02 Completed Dawson, Herbert, Ca-

pricornia

Collinsons Lagoon - Didgeridoo 9.58 0.14 0.15 0.04 0.49 5.85 Sep 2001 Dawson, Herbert

Widening & rehab, minor rea-

lignment, o/t lanes & flood im-

munity

70.30 0.81 8.58 24.11 Jun 2004 Various

Yandina Bypass 62.02 20.24 6.73 0.49 Completed Fairfax

Jackass Ck-Matilda 4.43 3.08 0.05 Completed Wide Bay

David Drive 0.15 0.12 -0.14 Completed Wide Bay

Gunalda Range Realignment 17.00 0.20 0.23 0.53 10.36 5.66 Completed Wide Bay

Cooloola-Curra Widening 4.68 0.96 1.33 2.27 -0.04 Completed Fairfax, Wide Bay

Construction of Wallaville Bridge 28.50 0.70 6.48 20.34 0.50 -0.09 Completed Wide Bay

Gympie to Rockhampton -

Widen/Rehab

17.59 2.02 6.17 -0.23 Completed Fairfax, Wide Bay,

Hinkler, Capricornia

Cooroy Bypass 8.56 0.08 Completed Fairfax


Cost 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

2000-01

(to 30 May)

Anticipated

Completion

Date Electorate

$m $m $m $m $m $m

Bruce Hwy - Bororen to Daisy

Dell

3.30 1.73 0.07 Completed Hinkler

Marlborough to Princhester

Deviation

5.38 2.24 3.14 0.01 Completed Capricornia

Duckworth Street Duplication 6.31 2.33 2.12 1.62 -0.03 Completed Herbert

Duplication of Ron Camm Bridge 25.00 1.70 6.02 13.77 -0.36 Completed Dawson

Replacement of Elliott River

Bridge

4.47 0.24 0.21 3.95 0.04 -0.05 Completed Dawson

Dalbeg Turnoff-McDesme Dupli-

cation

1.52 1.19 0.11 0.03 -0.02 Completed Dawson

Caboolture Motorway 6 laning 220.00 0.66 -0.53 0.65 5.05 11.36 Jun 2004 Lilley, Petrie,Dickson

Uni. Rd/Charles Barton Bridge

Townsville

4.02 0.17 Completed Herbert

University Road-Melton Black

Drive Townsville

0.51 -0.01 0.44 -0.14 Completed Herbert

Uni Rd Mark Reid Drive to

Flinders H’way

9.44 5.07 -0.04 0.28 0.98 0.06 Completed Herbert

Buchanans Road interchange 8.92 4.96 -0.06 Completed Longman

Maitland Rd-Mackey Ck 2.00 -0.01 Completed Leichhardt

Skyring Creek bridge and Wid-

ening/Rehab Cooray and Skyring

Creek.

9.00 3.67 4.37 0.20 Completed Fairfax

Yandina - Cooroy duplication 110.00 0.47 4.53 7.86 2.22 19.92 Sep 2003 Fairfax

Nambour Bypass 8.33 0.66 Completed Fairfax

Rockhampton to Townsville –

Pavement re-surfacing

3.96 -0.07 Completed Dawson, Herbert, Ca-

pricornia


Intersection and traffic control

measures

2.65 Completed Dawson, Herbert, Ca-

pricornia

Rockhampton to Townsville

bridgeworks

2.30 0.83 Completed Dawson, Herbert, Ca-

pricornia

Portsmith Rd duplication 10.00 4.75 5.25 Completed Leichhardt

Ayr-Home Hill to Brandon by-

pass – planning

10.00 2.63 0.10 Completed Dawson

House Ck bridge and approaches 1.80 0.21 Aug 2001 Hinkler

Warrego Highway

Brisbane to Toowoomba -

Widen/Rehab

4.54 1.06 0.02 Completed Groom, Blair, Oxley

Marburg Bypass 15.45 1.00 2.43 11.24 Completed Blair

Toowoomba Bypass planning 10.50 6.00 4.24 0.37 2.00 Completed Groom

Oakey Bypass 12.00 1.02 4.31 5.11 0.68 0.27 Completed Groom

Yaralla Road - Planning 13.55 0.14 -0.02 0.02 4.14 Jan 2002 Maranoa

Dalby-McAlister 2.06 1.73 0.19 -0.03 Completed Maranoa

Toowoomba-Roma -

Widen/Rehab

16.20 5.16 1.69 1.88 Completed Groom, Maranoa

Amby - Marbango 2.12 1.21 0.52 Completed Maranoa

Roma to Morven – Widen &

rehab

13.40 2.68 2.87 0.54 .01 Completed Maranoa


Cost 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

2000-01

(to 30 May)

Anticipated

Completion

Date Electorate

$m $m $m $m $m $m

Landsborough Highway

Douglas Ponds 9.50 Completed Capricornia

Longreach Deviation 3.65 0.75 Completed Capricornia

Thompson River bridge 24.80 0.13 0.68 5.75 17.20 0.30 Completed Kennedy

Morven to Barcaldine - Pavement

re-surfacing

1.94 Completed Kennedy, Capricornia

Morven to Cloncurry – Widen &

rehab

28.74 1.37 0.10 Completed Capricornia, Maranoa,

Kennedy

New England Highway

Dalveen project 6.51 -0.54 0.54 Completed Maranoa

Warwick to NSW border - Pave-

ment

re-surfacing

0.18 Completed Maranoa

Ipswich to NSW border -

Widen/Rehab

3.27 -0.05 0.09 Completed Maranoa, Forde, Blair

Cottonvale -Thulimba 4.75 -0.02 Completed Maranoa

Dalveen - The Summit final

sealing

1.27 0.73 Completed Maranoa

Gore Highway

Toowoomba to NSW border -

Widen/Rehab

13.15 -0.02 0.61 2.52 3.92 Jun 2003 Maranoa, Groom

Westbrook Creek 6.20 2.38 3.44 0.38 -0.01 Completed Groom

Barkly Highway

Widening & rehab between

Cloncurry & Mt Isa

60.84 4.97 7.56 1.24 6.05 12.37 Aug 2001 Kennedy

Planning for Georgina River

bridge and approaches

14.00 0.18 0.28 2.50 Jun 2003 Kennedy

Inca Creek Bridge 18.00 0.71 0.23 Jun 2004 Kennedy

Cunningham Highway

Dinmore 2.78 2.20 0.58 Completed Oxley

Freestone Ck to 8 Mile Intersec-

tion

3.83 0.55 2.97 0.30 -0.07 Completed Groom

Mt Edwards Passing Lanes 5.80 Completed Forde

River Road interchange 11.95 -0.51 Completed Oxley

Ripley Road ramps & duplication 2.71 -0.07 Completed Oxley

Logan Motorway to Goodna Ck 0.57 0.04 Completed Oxley

Ipswich Motorway

Major upgrade concept planning 2.00 0.39 0.59 Jun 2002 Moreton, Oxley, Ryan

Traffic safety improvements 7.00 0.26 6.74 Jul 2001 Oxley

Brisbane Urban


Cost 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

2000-01

(to 30 May)

Anticipated

Completion

Date Electorate

$m $m $m $m $m $m

Noise Amelioration 1.20 0.69 0.13 0.05 Completed Lilley, Petrie

Widen & rehab between Newn-

ham Rd and Gateway Motorway

0.85 0.64 Completed Lilley, Petrie

Other

Cunningham & New England

Hwys, widening & rehab

16.35 2.00 0.64 4.50 7.04 Jan 2002 Blair, Forde, Maranoa

Warrego, Landsborough &

Flinders Hwys, widening, rehab

& flood immunity

50.79 4.09 11.50 19.87 Jun 2002 Capricornia, Groom,

Kennedy, Maranoa

National Highway Bridge up-

grading – various bridges

12.50 1.92 6.75 Aug 2002 Various

Asset Preservation 82.57 73.78 82.11 65.44 62.69 Ongoing

TOTAL QUEENSLAND 181.06 161.54 178.60 159.93 218.12

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Perth Urban

Swan Vally Bypass Study 1.90 0.28 0.61 -0.08 0.06 Dec 2001 Pearce

Great Eastern Highway

Mundaring to Sawyers Valley 3.69 1.50 1.31 0.28 -0.01 Completed Pearce

Sawyers Valley-Lakes duplica-

tion

35.00 2.42 0.20 0.09 Jan 2003 Pearce

Roe Highway to Scott Street 14.04 2.60 2.23 0.61 1.18 5.67 Oct 2001 Pearce

Lakes to El Caballo Blanco 7.30 2.74 1.49 Completed Pearce

Northam Bypass 5.00 0.54 0.89 1.05 1.14 12.22 Sep 2002 Pearce

Bullabrook O/T lanes 1.95 1.38 0.44 -0.08 0.08 Completed Pearce

Meenaar to Walgoolan 50.75 11.95 16.59 1.30 Completed Kalgoorlie

Baandee Lakes reconstruction

works

1.31 0.07 Jun 2002 O’Connor

Great Northern Highway

Little Panton and Spring Ck

Bridges

6.50 0.31 3.73 1.45 0.10 Jul 2001 Kalgoorlie

Jailhouse Ck 9.60 0.46 0.20 Completed Kalgoorlie

Camel Ck Bridge 12.52 10.13 1.82 -0.02 Completed Kalgoorlie

Roe Hwy to MRB 15.35 1.00 -0.46 5.21 7.48 -0.07 Jul 2001 Pearce

Wogarno to Munarra 11.60 0.40 -0.12 Completed Kalgoorlie

Roebuck Plains 1.60 1.35 0.25 Completed Kalgoorlie

Moorine Rock Bridge 2.97 0.75 0.37 0.06 Completed Kalgoorlie

Laurel Downs - Plum Plains 6.00 1.70 2.93 2.38 Completed Kalgoorlie

Karalundi 11.00 1.37 9.64 Completed Kalgoorlie

Cue South 0.47 0.47 0.47 Completed Kalgoorlie


Cost 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

2000-01

(to 30 May)

Anticipated

Completion

Date Electorate

$m $m $m $m $m $m

MacPhee Creek/Card Creek 0.77 0.77 0.77 Completed Kalgoorlie

Replace single lane bridges

(Ord/Bow/Fitzroy/Dunham)

60.00 0.46 0.79 Jun 2002 Kalgoorlie

Wubin to Paynes Find flood

mitigation works

2.78 0.77 -0.20 Jun 2002 Kalgoorlie

Miling to Wubin widening &

rehab

1.00 0.14 Dec 2004 O’Connor

Dalwallinu heavy haulage route 2.65 0.02 Dec 2002 O’Connor

Wonjil Section, widen & rehab. 1.60 1.40 Oct 2001 Kalgoorlie

Pilbara & Kimberly regions –

flood repairs

7.92 7.74 Aug 2001 Kalgoorlie

Eyre Highway

Jimberlana 14.15 3.06 0.43 Completed Kalgoorlie

Norseman - Cocklebiddy 50.00 3.04 11.16 19.34 2.29 6.58 Jun 2002 Kalgoorlie

Other

Rehab of NH as a result of cy-

clones Vance & Elaine

1.60 1.58 -0.15 0.18 Completed Pearce, Kalgoorlie

Rehab of Great Eastern Hwy &

Coolgardie-Esperance Hwy

10.00 3.39 4.21 Oct 2001 Kalgoorlie, O’Connor,

Pearce

National Highway resealing 6.10 5.00 -0.54 Jun 2002 Kalgoorlie, O’Connor,

Pearce

National Highway Bridge up-

grading

6.70 1.42 -0.84 Jun 2003 Kalgoorlie, O’Connor,

Pearce


TOTAL WESTERN

AUSTRALIA

74.84 67.94 70.09 49.09 56.27

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Adelaide Urban

Portrush Rd - Magill to Greenhill

Rd

36.78 0.04 0.04 0.40 0.85 8.48 2003 Sturt

South Road Connector 44.11 1.05 0.01 0.04 Completed Port Adelaide

Northern Metropolitan Adelaide

NHS Study

0.30 0.27 Completed Adelaide, Bonython,

Port Adelaide, Makin

Main North Road

Widening Hogarth Rd to Grove

Way - planning

11.00 1.72 0.28 0.54 0.17 0.01 Completed Bonython, Makin

Kings Rd to Montague Rd wid-

ening - planning

1.50 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.41 0.18 Completed Bonython, Makin

Port Wakefield Road

Salisbury Hwy to Virginia access

controls

3.90 0.96 -0.01 0.01 Completed Bonython, Port Ade-

laide


Cost 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

2000-01

(to 30 May)

Anticipated

Completion

Date Electorate

$m $m $m $m $m $m

Planning for further upgrading 0.43 0.20 0.01 Completed Bonython, Port Ade-

laide, Wakefield

Pt Wakefield to Wild Horse

Plains - Duplication

14.00 0.09 0.01 0.04 Completed Wakefield

Access improvements to Pt

Wakefield Rd

1.75 1.57 0.18 Completed Bonython, Port Ade-

laide

Port Wakefield - Port Augusta

Overtaking lanes 6.00 0.61 1.49 0.20 1.42 3.11 Completed Grey, Wakefield

Sturt Highway

Greenock turn-off to Truro -

overtaking lanes at Moppa Rd &

Bastion Hill

15.70 0.54 6.91 5.17 1.00 0.20 Completed Wakefield

Gawler to Barmera - Widening 4.37 0.59 0.68 0.19 Completed Wakefield

Daveyston Bypass 6.74 4.15 1.05 Completed Wakefield

Blanchetown Bridge replacement 20.90 4.69 9.90 4.71 0.03 Completed Wakefield

She-oak Log Bypass 4.34 0.01 0.02 0.03 Completed Wakefield

Walkerie bypass – traffic man-

agement improvements

0.08 0.07 Completed

Dukes Highway

Overtaking lanes between Tailem

Bend & Keith

10.52 2.18 2.23 0.66 0.01 -0.06 Completed Barker

Overtaking lanes between Keith

and Victoria border

5.02 2.68 2.20 Completed Barker

Mt Barker Rd Realignment 138.00 9.16 35.66 60.83 36.92 Completed Mayo, Sturt

Eyre Highway

Rehabilitation between Ceduna &

Lincoln Gap

29.85 5.31 3.22 3.17 1.66 3.40 Oct 2001 Grey

Other

National Highway strategic

overview

0.28 0.22 0.06 Completed Grey


TOTAL SOUTH AUSTRALIA 58.49 90.07 100.47 64.96 40.25

TASMANIA

Bass Highway

Victoria Bridge duplication 14.23 0.37 Completed Lyons

Overtaking lanes 3.19 1.28 Completed Lyons

Hagley to Deloraine. 6.11 1.38 0.81 Completed Lyons

Deloraine to Westbury. 22.40 2.59 0.27 0.03 0.22 Completed Lyons


Cost 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

2000-01

(to 30 May)

Anticipated

Completion

Date Electorate

$m $m $m $m $m $m

Westbury-Hagley Bypass. 36.00 2.56 19.99 8.54 Oct 2001 Lyons

Heavy Vehicle Overload Strategy 1.83 0.35 0.09 0.48 0.79 Jun 2001 Braddon

Overtaking lanes & stock under-

passes

3.30 0.22 Completed Braddon, Lyons

Penguin to Chasm Creek 65.86 19.88 16.93 18.80 2.19 0.04 Completed Braddon

Don interchange 3.47 1.36 Oct 2001 Braddon

Port Sorrel Road to Devonport

duplication

17.13 0.12 Mar 2003 Braddon

Midland Highway

Hobart Northern Approaches

Study

1.43 0.43 0.16 0.37 0.07 Oct 2001 Lyons

Bridgewater Industrial Estate –

service roads

2.76 0.24 1.35 Jul 2001 Lyons

Overtaking lanes & stock under-

passes.

5.13 .06 0.38 Completed Lyons

St Peters Pass – safety review &

modifications

1.65 0.54 Dec 2001 Lyons

Bridgewater bridge – engineering,

environmental & geotechnical

investigations

0.38 0.03 Jan 2002 Lyons

Powarnna rail crossing 0.46 0.17 Dec 2001 Lyons

Other

National Highway Planning

Projects

1.00 0.33 0.10 0.32 Jun 2001 Braddon, Lyons

Bass and Midlands safety im-

provements

1.95 0.39 Completed Braddon, Lyons

Bass and Midlands Hwy - Im-

prove night time delineation

1.17 0.52 0.64 Completed Braddon, Lyons

Bass/Midlands Hwy junction

upgrading

2.00 0.10 0.76 0.68 Jun 2002 Lyons

National Highway bridge up-

grading

4.30 2.74 0.67 Jun 2003 Braddon, Lyons

Shoulder sealing 2.22 0.43 Completed Various


TOTAL TASMANIA 33.60 27.18 30.38 36.32 20.06

NORTHERN TERRITORY

Stuart Highway

Darwin to Katherine alignment

improvements

0.62 0.55 0.01 0.06 Completed Northern Territory

Duplication between Elizabeth

River Bridge and the Intersection

of the Cox Peninsula Road

1.66 0.52 1.14 Completed Northern Territory

Palmerston Bypass 4.24 0.31 4.03 0.11 Completed Northern Territory


Cost 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00

2000-01

(to 30 May)

Anticipated

Completion

Date Electorate

$m $m $m $m $m $m

Elizabeth River Bridge. 1.70 1.60 0.02 0.08 Completed Northern Territory

Arnhem Hwy intersection to

Elizabeth River bridge duplica-

tion

4.15 1.58 1.60 2002 Northern Territory

Overtaking lanes between Darwin

and Katherine


Lindsay St to Crawford St, Kath-

erine duplication


Hugh, Finke and Palmer River

bridges

6.20 0.21 Not known Northern Territory

Manton River bridge 0.93 0.65 Completed Northern Territory

Victoria Highway

Widening and rehabilitation west

of Katherine including drainage

structures & upgrading of the

Lost Creek Bridge

7.65 1.06 5.22 0.04 0.10 Completed Northern Territory

Other

Stuart and Victoria Hwys - pave-

ment widening and rehabilitation

11.05 4.81 1.44 4.48 3.55 1.78 Ongoing Northern Territory

Flood repairs 7.86 0.99 5.02 1.86 Completed Northern Territory

Bridge construction - various 3.01 1.97 Completed Northern Territory

Asset Preservation 17.46 16.63 16.05 17.94 15.70 Ongoing Northern Territory

TOTAL NORTHERN

TERRITORY

26.85 30.21 25.15 27.67 22.10

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL

TERRITORY

Federal Highway

Duplication Stirling Ave-NSW

border

38.67 11.01 23.96 Completed Fraser

Barton Highway

Bellenden St to Northbourne Ave

duplication

1.50 0.32 2003 Fraser

Asset Preservation 2.18 2.19 1.56 1.54 1.38 Ongoing Fraser

TOTAL AUSTRALIAN

CAPITAL TERRITORY

2.18 2.190 12.57 25.50 1.70


Roads: Calder Highway(Question No. 2505)

Mr Gibbons asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4April 2001:(1) How many kilometres of the Calder Highway between Melbourne and Bendigo (a) have been

duplicated to date and (b) remain to be duplicated.(2) Which new construction project does he plan to have (a) started and (b) completed between now

and 2006.(3) What sum of Federal funds will be required for each project and over how many kilometres will

each project extend.(4) What proportion of the duplication work remaining to be done does each project represent.(5) What date has the Government set of the completion of the duplication of the Calder Highway

between Melbourne and Bendigo.(6) What new construction works does the Government plan to undertake on the Calder Highway

between Melbourne and Bendigo after 2006.(7) What is the projected cost of each of these projects and over how many kilometres will each proj-

ect extend.(8) Is he able to say whether the Victorian Government has a commitment to 2006 as the deadline for

the completion of the duplication of the Calder Highway between Bendigo and Melbourne inpartnership with the Federal Government; if so, why does the Federal Government plan only for asubstantial completion of the duplication by 2006.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) (a) 87 km

(b) 64 km(2) to (8) The Calder Highway is a state arterial road and responsibility for its upgrading rests with the

Victorian Government.To assist Victoria with its upgrading the Federal Government provides additional funds under itsRoads of National Importance Program.As part of the 2001/02 roads Budget, $25m has been allocated to commence the Carlsruhe dupli-cation project. This level of funding, when combined with State funds, will see this project com-pleted and opened to traffic by the end of 2002/03.The deadline to duplicate to Bendigo by 2006 was set by the Victorian Government, without anyconsultation with the Federal Government. Given the Calder Highway is a State road, the Victo-rian Government is free to commence all other necessary works to meet its set deadline.

Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Sale(Question No. 2520)

Mr Murphy asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 April 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an article titled “Airport still counts cost of Olympics” by Ms

Laura Tingle published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 4 April 2001.(2) What is the impact on the Government’s proposed sale plans of the multi-million- dollar claim

against Sydney Airport Corporation referred to in Ms Tingle’s article.

Mr Howard—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) and (2) Given the relative sums of money involved, the matters raised in the article are unlikely to

have any impact on the sale plans for Sydney Airports Corporation Limited.

Defence: Copper Napthenate(Question No. 2531)

Dr Martin asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) How many sandbags does the Army currently have in stock.


(2) How many of these sandbags are treated with the Class 3 chemical copper napthenate.(3) Has his attention been drawn to the detrimental health effects associated with handling products

impregnated with copper napthenate and can he advise of current occupational health and safetyprocedures in place for the handling of these sandbags.

(4) Does the current request for tender for the supply of sandbags to the Army contain a specificationfor the use of copper napthenate.

(5) Will he seek registration for the use of copper napthenate for rot proofing sandbags.(6) On how many occasions has the Army sold or given sandbags for use by domestic relief organisa-

tions in the last year.(7) When these sandbags are used for flood relief and other related purposes are they retrieved at the

end of their usefulness and disposed of in accordance with regulations for prescribed wastes.

Mr Reith—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) Approximately 260,000.(2) All of them.(3) I have been advised that skin and eye irritation can occur following prolonged contact with copper

napthenate in its raw form. For the purpose of impregnating hessian sandbags, the chemical isfirst dissolved and diluted in white spirit and is therefore unlikely to present a hazard. The Class 3reference relates specifically to the flammability of the white spirit. As an added precaution, De-fence has issued instructions that personal protective equipment be worn when handling sandbagstreated with copper napthenate. There is no evidence to suggest that there are any additionalhealth risks associated with the storage and handling of these items.

(4) A previous request for tender, now terminated, did propose the use of copper naphthenate or anequivalent. A revised request for tender now being developed specifies untreated hessian bags.Defence has decided to discontinue specifying copper napthenate as a rot proofing agent for envi-ronmental reasons. Defence is actively investigating alternate rot proofing treatments and materi-als.

(5) No, registration is only necessary for organisations intending to treat materiel with copper nap-thenate in Australia. Defence has no such intention.

(6) The exact number of occasions is unknown, however it is not a common occurrence.(7) Defence has no visibility of how domestic relief organisations have managed the collection and

disposal of used sandbags in the past. The change to untreated hessian sandbags will obviate thisrequirement.

Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Air Traffic Control(Question No. 2532)

Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on22 May 2001:(1) Is Airservices Australia planning to move its function of air traffic control for Sydney Airport to

the air traffic control facility in Melbourne.(2) Have he, his Department or Airservices Australia received representations expressing safety and

professional concerns about the proposal: if so, (a) what are the concerns which have been ex-pressed and (b) which professional organisation or organisation have expressed those concerns.

(3) What is the operational justification for the Airservices Australia consolidation plan.(4) Does Airservices Australia believe there will be an increase in safety or service levels to the avia-

tion industry by such a consolidation, if so, how.(5) Does Airservices Australia anticipate achieving cost savings by such a consolidation; if so, (a)

what are those anticipated cost savings and (b) how have those savings been calculated.(6) Has Airservices Australia considered whether separating the terminal control unit from the associ-

ated control tower at Sydney Airport will adversely affect the airport ability to meet the demandsof both the aviation industry and the community; if so, how have those considerations been re-flected in the decision which has been made.


(7) Has Airservices Australia considered whether controlling the busiest airspace in Australia fromMelbourne introduces greater potential for a technical failure to jeopardise separation between air-craft over Sydney; if so, how have those considerations been reflected in the decision which hasbeen made.

(8) Has Airservices Australia considered the potential for data link and communications failures be-tween the various facilities which will be relocated to Melbourne and those which will remain atSydney Airport; if so, what would be the safety consequences of such a data link or communica-tion failure.

(9) Is it the case that disaster recovery capability will be severely reduced if the terminal control unitis moved from Sydney to Melbourne and in particular have there been instances where it has beennecessary for the Sydney Tower to be evacuated to the TCU has been crucial in the establishmentof a temporary tower, if so would that ability to establish such a temporary facility be impeded ifthe TCU is moved to Melbourne.

(10) Is it the case that presently the control centres at Cairns, Brisbane, Sydney Melbourne, Adelaideand Perth can operate independently of each other but that they are also able to take over airspacebeing controlled by adjacent centres if required; if so, if Airservices Australias consolidation plansgo ahead will these disaster recovery features be lost or significantly reduced and, in particular,should the Melbourne Centre need to be evacuated will it result in airspace, including that overSydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth being uncontrolled or under controlled.

(11) Is it the case that air traffic controllers develop local knowledge during the course of their dutiessuch as local geography, weather patters and terrain; if so, (a) how will that local knowledge pos-sessed by controllers at Sydney airport be replicated if those controllers are moved to Melbourneand (b) is local knowledge of tremendous importance during emergency situations when everypiece of available information is needed to resolve the situation.

(12) Has Airservices Australia considered additional complications confronting controllers as a resultof the planned upgrade of Sydney airport and Bankstown airport.

(13) What will be the cost of transferring the control unit including transfer expenses, redundancypayments and retraining costs and how does Airservices Australia anticipate that it will recoverthese costs.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:I am advised by Airservices Australia that:(1) Airservices has only undertaken an initial feasibility study into the consolidation of its TCU fa-

cilities at Cairns, Perth, Adelaide and Sydney at this time. No decision has been made on the relo-cation of the Sydney Terminal Control Unit. Airservices will not be consolidating Cairns facilities.

(2) Yes. Concerns were expressed over future employment and to ensure that safety is not compro-mised in the relocation of the TCU. Representations have been received from unions, individualcontrollers and state governments. Professional organisations that have made representation havebeen Civil Air Operations Officers’ Association of Australia which is the union that represents airtraffic controllers and the Community and Public Sector Union representing technical and clericalstaff.

(3) The basis upon which the feasibility study has been undertaken is to determine whether Airservi-ces’ nationally integrated TAAATS system has the ability to yield further benefits to the Australianaviation industry through consolidating Airservices’ TCU facilities to allow improved service de-livery and greater integration and standardisation of air navigation services.

(4) Airservices advises they expect no adverse impact on safety as a result of its proposed TCU con-solidation program. It is expected there will be an increase in service levels to the aviation indus-try through improved operations because of less fragmentation, increased standardisation and op-timisation of operating procedures, more efficient transition between Enroute and TCU and thepotential for reductions in air navigation costs.

(5) Airservices anticipates there will be cost savings as a result of its proposed TCU consolidationprogram. Airservices has advised that analysis of the total expected cost savings has not yet beendetermined but would be achieved through reduced management overheads and infrastructure, re-duced maintenance and technical support and spares holding, improved equipment utilisation, op-timisation of operational procedures and consistency of service.


(6) The Sydney TCU and Tower are currently operated from totally separate (although nearby) loca-tions. Dynamic traffic management and communication between the Tower and TCU is via com-munication systems provided by the TAAATS environment. The distance between the Tower andTCU controllers is not a factor in meeting the demands of the aviation industry or community orin coordinating traffic management at Sydney Airport. The same level of communications and co-ordination will exist between the TCU and the Sydney Tower, irrespective of the location of theTCU. Only the Tower controllers need to be physically located at the Airport.

(7) The physical location of the Sydney TCU has no bearing on the technical operation or capabilitiesof the TAAATS air navigation system, the operation of air navigation aids at Sydney Airport, northe aircraft separation standards and other regulations that apply to aircraft operating into and outof Sydney Airport. Operating the Sydney TCU from Melbourne will not introduce greater poten-tial for technical failure. No decision has been made on the consolidation proposal. Any decisionwill be subject to the approval by CASA of a safety case, which would examine the matters raisedin questions (6), (7) & (8).

(8) See answer to questions (6) & (7).(9) Relocation of the TCU will not impact on disaster recovery capabilities. The coordination and

communication links between the Tower and TCU necessary for an evacuation of the Tower andestablishment of a temporary Tower would remain the same regardless of the location of the TCUfacility. Relocation of the Sydney TCU to Melbourne would not impede the establishment of atemporary Tower facility at Sydney Airport should it be necessary.

(10) The TAAATS system is such that the radar signal from one centre can be accessed and viewedfrom a remote location. This is the basis upon which the TCU consolidation study is contem-plated. However the crucial element in managing aircraft from a remote location is the availabilityof appropriately trained staff. Airservices disaster recovery ability will not be compromised underthe TCU consolidation proposal because appropriate measures will be put into place, as part of theconsolidation plan, to ensure that this is the case.

(11) Local knowledge can assist but is not essential to air traffic management within the TCU envi-ronment. Local knowledge is of much greater importance to Tower controllers. The current pro-posal to relocate the Sydney TCU in no way impacts on the Sydney Tower.(a) Should a decision be made to relocate the Sydney TCU, Airservices will encourage as many

Sydney controllers as possible to move so that local knowledge is maintained. Local knowl-edge will still be available to TCU controllers through the Sydney Tower controllers.

(b) Local knowledge can be important in an emergency, depending on the actual situation. Thislocal knowledge will be available from the Tower.

(12) Yes.(13) Total relocation costs or expected cost savings have not yet been defined apart from indicative

costs and savings outlined in the Feasibility Study.Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Noise

(Question No. 2533)Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on

22 May 2001:Is his Department or Airservices Australia currently reviewing the present noise insulation boundary forhomes in the vicinity of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if so, what parameters have been set for thereview and, in particular, to what extent does the review factor in the inconvenience of the time thatover flights occur.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:Yes, the noise insulation boundaries are regularly reviewed by my Department based on the AustralianNoise Exposure Index (ANEI) prepared by Airservices Australia for the previously completed calendaryear.The ANEI includes a weighting for aircraft movements between 7pm and 7am.

Retirees: Budget Initiatives(Question No. 2544)

Mr Murphy asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:


(1) Has his attention been drawn to page 6 of the 13 to 15 April 2001 edition of The Sydney MorningHerald which reports him as saying that he has signalled the Government is looking at the plightof self-funded retirees on low incomes hit by falling interest rates and that it is a group of peoplefor which the Government would like to provide some help.

(2) What help does Government propose to assist self-funded retirees who are hurting because of theGoods and Services Tax and low interest rates.

(3) When will the Government announce its policy to assist this group of Australians.

Mr Howard—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) to (3) The government announced a range of measures to assist self-funded retirees in the 2001-02

Budget. It increased the low income aged persons rebate to provide an effective tax free thresholdof $20,000 for individuals and up to $32,612 for couples. It increased the Medicare levy thresholdcorrespondingly so that older Australians do not incur a Medicare levy until they incur a tax li-ability. The government extended income limits for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card(CSHC) to $50,000 for single self-funded retirees and $80,000 for couples. At the same time, itintroduced a Telephone Allowance as an additional concession to CSHC holders and has commit-ted to negotiating with State and Territory governments on extending the range of concessionsavailable under the CSHC.

Veterans: British Nuclear Tests(Question No. 2548)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Is he aware of the plight of veterans who were exposed to British nuclear tests.(2) Is he able to say whether the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has ob-

tained international research regarding the possible health effects of exposure to ionising radiationand made this information available to those affected by the British nuclear tests; if not, why not.

(3) Has the Government compiled a nominal roll of all Australians affected by British nuclear tests; ifnot, why not.

(4) Has the Government appointed a scientific advisory committee to oversee any studies of the ef-fects of nuclear tests on humans; if not, why not.

(5) Has this scientific advisory committee reported back to him or the Government; if not, why not.(6) What priority has he and the Government placed on awarding proper compensation to Australians

and their descendants whose health has suffered from the effects of radiation as a result of Britishnuclear tests.

Mr Bruce Scott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) I am aware of the claims and concerns of those veterans who were exposed to British Nuclear

tests. Compensation, including medical treatment, is available through the Military Compensationand Rehabilitation Service to veterans for any illness or injury which has resulted from their serv-ice. As I have recently announced, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs will be conducting aMortality and Cancer Study of Australian participants of the British Nuclear Tests.

(2) The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is not within theVeterans’ Affairs portfolio and therefore this question should be referred to the Minister for Healthand Aged Care, the Hon Dr Michael Wooldridge MP, who has responsibility for ARPANSA.However, the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA) which is in my Portfolio, has reviewed re-search into the affects of ionising radiation exposure. I have also had the University of Dundee re-search reviewed by an independent Australian epidemiologist. This report has been made avail-able to organisations representing the interests of Australian participants in the British NuclearTests.

(3) The Department of Veterans’ Affairs has completed a draft nominal roll of all participants in theBritish Nuclear tests and this is now available for public comment. The delay in completing thenominal roll was due to the need for a regulation to be made, for the Department to gain access tothe lists of participants used in an earlier study, the “Donovan Study” of the early 1980s. The listssubsequently obtained from that study had many gaps and it has been a detailed, exacting task bythe Department to check primary records to fill as many of the gaps as possible. The nominal roll


has to contain sufficient personal information to enable adequate data matching against the Na-tional Death Index and the Cancer Registry.The draft nominal roll includes civilian workers employed in the construction industry, publicservice and other supporting industries. For some of the civilian participants, basic demographicdetails such as date of birth and full first names are missing. Now that the draft nominal roll hasbeen released for public comment, it is hoped that civilians with data missing will contact the De-partment of Veterans’ Affairs. It should be possible to include the civilians for whom full detailsare available, in the data matching for the study.

(4) and (5) After release of the draft Nominal Roll the Government’s next priority is to establish aConsultative Forum of representatives of the participants in the Atomic Tests. Once this has beenestablished, a Scientific Advisory Committee will be appointed, with the Consultative Forumhelping to establish the membership of the Scientific Advisory Committee. I expect to finalise theScientific Advisory Committee in the next few months.

(6) Where any Australian has suffered from an illness or injury related to service during the nucleartesting program, there are a number of avenues available for compensation. These are:(i) under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. Civilians who are suffering

from an illness or injury related to their participation in the nuclear testing program shouldlodge a claim with COMCARE. Claims from service personnel are now administered by theDepartment of Veterans’ Affairs under the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Serviceon behalf of the Department of Defence; or

(ii) the Special Administrative Scheme, which is administered by the Department of Industry,Science and Resources. This scheme provides compensation to test participants who havedeveloped multiple myeloma or leukemia, other than chronic lymphatic leukemia. Since1995 compensation is only provided for leukemia where it had developed within the first 25years since participation - this follows a similar United Kingdom Scheme; or

(iii) common law claims through the courts.

Port Welfare Committees: Funding(Question No. 2551)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon no-tice, on 22 May 2001:(1) What sums are available through his Department to organisations who want assistance with estab-

lishing Port Welfare Committees in each State and the Northern Territory following the Govern-ment’s 7 March 2001 announcement to establish such committees.

(2) What criteria will apply for approving funding to organisations seeking to establish the commit-tees.

(3) For how long will funding be available to establish the committees and can it be extended beyondthat period.

(4) Will successful applicants be requested to meet performance standards established by his Depart-ment; if so, what is the nature of the performance standards.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) I announced on 7 March 2001 that the Federal Government would provide funding to assist with

the establishment of Port Welfare Committees (PWCs) in each State and the Northern Territory.Following my announcement, funds totalling $100,000 have been made available through the De-partment to assist with establishing the PWCs.

(2) The base criterion that will apply for approving funding to organisations seeking to establishPWCs is that those organisations demonstrate that funds provided will be used by them to employa person to assist in establishing PWCs. It is envisaged that the person employed would undertakea range of tasks in this role, including research, consultation and administrative tasks.

(3) Federal funding assistance towards the establishment of PWCs will be available for two years.Total funds available are $100,000 which will be provided at the maximum rate of $50,000 peryear, for two years. It is envisaged that the establishment of PWCs will be a task requiring amaximum period of two years to fully implement. Accordingly, the issue of extended funding be-yond this two-year period has not been considered by the Government.


(4) Organisations that are successful in obtaining Federal funding assistance towards establishingPWCs will be requested to meet performance standards in relation to the intended use of Federalfunds. Since it is envisaged that Federal funds will be used to employ a person to assist in estab-lishing PWCs, these performance standards will relate to demonstrable outcomes and deliverables,measured against reasonable timeframes.

Aviation: Australian Advanced Air Traffic System(Question No. 2553)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon no-tice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Since the introduction of The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) how many air

traffic control incidents have been found to have TAAATS human factors as causal factors inthose incidents.

(2) Has Airservices Australia conducted, arranged to be conducted or commissioned any studies orresearch into TAAATS human factors; if so, what were the findings or recommendations andwhen will each be implemented; if not why not.

(3) Will Airservices publish or make available any studies that have been conducted into TAAATShuman factors; if so, when and where; if not, why not.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by Airservices that:(1) The term ‘human factors’ encompasses all considerations that affect a person at work. Any inci-

dent that by definition is a breakdown in procedure, process, and item of equipment or perform-ance necessarily has an element of human factors as a causal factor. This factor could be a resultof design, implementation, maintenance or service delivery. With that in mind, Airservices seeslittle value in identifying the number of incidents that are attributable to the broad term humanfactors. Instead, Airservices considers its involvement in the incident and the factors relating tothat incident. As can be seen by the information below, the Air Traffic Services (ATS) attributedincident rate has reduced since the transition to TAAATS. Airservices has concluded that theTAAATS environment has improved the safety of the system in which Airservices operates. Forexample, the following graph represents ATS incidents for Terminal Control Area (TMA)/Tower(TWR) services at Sydney Airport (Kingsford-Smith Airport).

ATS Incidents per 100,000 movements for ATM TMA/TWR

0123456789

10

Jan’00 Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan ’01 Feb Mar

ATS/100K Linear (ATS/100K)


(2) Extensive research and evaluation of human factors issues were conducted during the design, im-plementation and operation of TAAATS. These include:Console ergonomics

Display colour palette

Lighting

Procedures

Human Machine Interface

Post implementation reviews were undertaken to ensure any deficiencies that had not been identi-fied or issues that had not been completely rectified, were identified and actions taken to addressthem.Commissioned research in relation to TAAATS human factors include:• A Human factors Evaluation of TAAATS Non radar Air Traffic Control, Unitas Consulting

• Human factors review of The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS), Directorate of Safety andEnvironment Assurance

• The Performance Assessment Model, University of Queensland.

The findings and recommendations of these studies have and continue to be evaluated by Air-services with respect to our increasing experience with TAAATS. Many of these recommendationshave been implemented becoming an integral part of the system.

(3) The research commissioned by Airservices in relation to TAAATS human factors could be madeavailable on request.

Shipping: Foreign Vessels(Question No. 2556)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon no-tice, on 22 May 2001:For each of the last ten financial years,(a) how many single and continuous voyage permits have been issued with respect to foreign vessels

operating in Australian waters,(b) what has been the gross tonnage carried for each category of continuous and single voyage permit,(c) how much of that cargo has been (i) in containers and (ii) bulk carriage for each category of single

and continuous voyage permit and(d) from which ports was the cargo taken and to where was it taken.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(a) Details are contained in attachment A, that has been provided to the Tabling Officer.(b) Details are contained in attachment A, that has been provided to the Table Office.(c) (i) Containerised cargo details are contained in attachment A, that has been provided to the Table

Office.(ii) Bulk Cargo Carried under Permits (in Tonnes)

YEAR 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-2001

SVPs 1261483 810510 1252212 3239488 2995420 3570289 4351092 6174754 6703740 6936121

CVPs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50400 0 12000

(d) The number of combinations of ports of loading and ports of discharge is considerably large as itinvolves most of Australia’s trading ports. In addition, many permits are issued for multiple portsof loading or discharge making the requested tabulations difficult to interpret. Accordingly, At-tachment B is a summary of each permit issued from January 1991 that contains the relevant in-formation and this may be of greater use than the tabulations requested. Attachment B has beenprovided to the House of Representatives Table Office.


Rail: Cunningham Rail Link(Question No. 2557)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon no-tice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Did he meet members of the Cunningham Rail Link Committee on the Gold Coast; if so, when did

the meeting occur.(2) At the meeting did he give a commitment that the Cunningham Rail Link would be fully investi-

gated as an option linking the Inland Rail line with the Port of Brisbane; if so, what action has hetaken to ensure that the Cunningham Rail Link is fully investigated as an option for the InlandRailway from Brisbane to Melbourne.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) Yes. The meeting was on 14 July 2000.(2) During the meeting I undertook to have the concerns of the Cunningham Rail Link Committee

brought to the attention of Australian Transport and Energy Corridor Limited. Subsequently thismatter was raised with Australian Transport and Energy Corridor Limited.

Insurance: Over 50s Insurance Agency(Question No. 2563)

Ms Hoare asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Serv-ices, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Did the Government publish an advertisement in the March/April 2001 edition of the Age Pension

News, encouraging pensioners to insure with the Over 50s Insurance Agency.(2) Is the Minister able to say whether the Over 50s Insurance Agency policies are underwritten by

World Marine General Insurance, which is a member of the HIH Insurance Group.(3) Why is the Government advertising HIH insurance six months after the Australian Prudential

Regulatory Authority (APRA) knew that HIH was in financial trouble, and in the same month thatAPRA appointed an inspector to HIH.

(4) Did the Government receive payment for the advertisement; if so, what sum.

Mr Anthony—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the fol-lowing answer to the honourable member’s question:(1) Age Pension News (APN) carries advertising that is seen as relevant to older Australians. The

March/April edition APN included advertising for the Over 50s Insurance Agency.(2) The Over 50s Insurance Agency was previously underwritten by HIH and subsequently has been

underwritten by Allianz.(3) When the HIH situation became known, immediate action was taken by Centrelink. The

March/April APN had already been printed and it was impossible to include an update. When theOver 50s Insurance Agency confirmed that business was now being underwritten by Allianz,Centrelink Customer Service Centres and Call Centres were notified immediately to ensure cor-rect and up to date information was given to customer enquiries.

(4) The Over 50s Insurance Agency paid $36,500 for advertising in the March/April edition of APN.These funds were used to offset Centrelink production costs for the publication.

Roads: Black Spot Funding(Question No. 2566)

Mr Andren asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22May 2001:What sum was approved for each federal electoral division in NSW under the Black Spot Program in1999-2000 and 2000-2001.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:


Federal Electorate Total 1999-2000 Total 2000-2001Banks $120,000 $320,000Barton $180,000 $115,000Bennelong $412,000 $150,000Berowra nil $95,000Blaxland nil $190,000Bradfield $280,000 $100,000Calare $500,000 $510,000Charlton $325,000 $220,000Chifley $130,000 $30,000Cook $220,000 $70,000Cowper $610,000 $1,383,000Cunningham $350,000 $440,000Dobell $660,000 $85,000Eden-Monaro $350,000 nilFarrer $250,000 $78,000Fowler $12,500 $275,000Gilmore nil $610,000Grayndler $40,000 $200,000Greenway $60,000 $35,000Gwydir $100,000 $99,800Hume $475,000 $1,201,000Hunter nil $830,000Kingsford-Smith $190,000 nilLindsay $398,000 $135,000Lyne $960,000 $967,000Macarthur $12,500 $448,000Mackellar nil $95,000Mitchell $550,000 nilNew England $85,000 $418,000Newcastle $270,000 $100,000Page nil $250,000Parkes $400,000 $37,000Parramatta nil $570,000Paterson $535,000 $1,580,000Prospect $312,000 $158,000Reid $80,000 $845,000Richmond $220,000 $230,000Riverina nil $200,000Robertson $550,000 $300,000Shortland $130,000 $320,000Sydney $50,000 $110,000Throsby $220,000 $40,000Watson nil $195,000Wentworth $20,000 $55,000Werriwa nil $195,000

Defence: National Service Act(Question No. 2572)

Mrs Crosio asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on22 May 2001:(1) Following the announcement on 26 April 2001 by the Prime Minister that a new medal will be

created to mark the 50th anniversary of the introduction of National Service in 1951, on what datewill the medals be (a) created and (b) awarded.

(2) From what date can servicemen apply for the medal and what is the process through which appli-cations can be obtained.


(3) Who will be eligible to receive the medal.(4) Is there an appeals mechanism if an application for the medal is rejected.(5) Where will the medal be struck.

Mr Bruce Scott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) (a) The medal and ribbon design will be completed by July 2001. The medal Regulations

should be completed in September 2001 at which point applications will be accepted for itsaward.

(b) Award of the medal will commence once the Regulations have been approved and applica-tions called for, taking into account existing applications for other medals, and Defence’spolicy of processing medal applications in order of receipt.

(2) Applications will not be accepted until the medal has been formally created. Once the Regula-tions have been approved, ex-national servicemen may make application on special applicationforms which will be designed for this purpose. The forms will be available over the internet andcopies will be sent to major ex-service groups for distribution.

(3) Eligibility for the medal will be dependent on the confirmation of an individual’s obligation toserve and that this obligation was fulfilled under the National Service Act, as it applied to the in-dividual at the time of his service. The details of this are being determined with the establishmentof the medal Regulations.

(4) Yes, to the Interdepartmental Committee on Defence Honours and Awards. However, awards canonly be made within the prescribed Regulations.

(5) Australia.

High Court of Australia: John Pfeiffer v. Rogerson(Question No. 2580)

Mr McClelland asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 May 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the findings of the High Court of Australia in John Pfeiffer v

Rogerson (21 June 2000).(2) Does the decision have any ramifications for defamation proceedings concerning a publication

throughout Australia, in particular, a necessity for parties in defamation proceedings to address thematters raised by separate State and Territory laws.

(3) Has the Government taken any further steps to progress the concept of unified defamation legisla-tion in light of that decision.

Mr Williams—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The decision in John Pfeiffer v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36 has implications for defamation pro-

ceedings as much as it has for any other proceedings. The Court held that—• the development of the common law to reflect the fact of federal jurisdiction and also, the na-

ture of the Australian federation requires that the double actionability rule now be discarded;• the law of the place of the wrong should be applied by courts in Australia as the law governing

all questions of substance to be determined in a proceeding arising from an intranational tort;and

• laws that bear upon the existence, extent or enforceability of remedies, rights and obligationsshould be characterised as substantive and not as procedural laws.

As was the position before the decision, in so far as publication throughout Australia is concerned,if a party wishes to bring a defamation action in respect of each jurisdiction in which the publica-tion occurred, that party will still need to address the matters raised by the law in each jurisdictionin which the publication took place.

(3) The issue of uniform defamation laws was considered for many years by the Standing Committeeof Attorneys-General. Unfortunately the States and Territories were unable to agree on substan-tive reforms and the issue was taken off the SCAG agenda. I expressed my disappointment withthe lack of willingness to reach agreement on the part of States and Territories at that time. Given


the continued inability of the States and Territories to reach agreement, the Government is not pur-suing the issue at this time.

Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Aircraft Movements(Question No. 2584)

Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24May 2001:(1) How many breaches of the cap on aircraft movements at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport have

occurred since the legislation introducing the cap was passed.(2) What were the details of these breaches.(3) What penalties have been imposed for these breaches.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) and (2) Under the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997, Airservices Australia is re-

quired to report to me on the extent of infringements (if any) of the maximum movement sched-uling limit in each quarter. I have tabled reports of the hours in which the maximum movementlimit was exceeded, including explanations for the events, for the quarters ending 30 June 2000 (4hours), 30 September 2000 (17), 31 December 2000 (7) and 31 March 2001 (13).Operational factors such as unforeseen delays can cause aircraft movements to ‘bunch up’ and theaircraft movement may not occur in the hour for which it has a slot but move into the next re-cording hour. This could mean that the actual number of movements in the next hour may exceed80, even though the number of allocated slots is still 80 or less. The overall number of move-ments at the airport will not be affected.

(3) No fines have been issued under the Act to date. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Actprovides that the 80 movement per hour cap is to be the planning basis for the Slot ManagementScheme established pursuant to the Act. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act does notprovide for penalties for breaches of the cap as such. Instead, the penalties for which the Act pro-vides relate to breaches of the Slot Management Scheme (ie, aircraft which operate without a slot,or aircraft which operate outside allowed time limits which apply to an allocated slot).

Australian Customs Service: Peter Tomson Court Case(Question No. 2586)

Mr Latham asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, uponnotice, on 24 May 2001:(1) Did the Australian Customs Service (ACS) conduct an unsuccessful court case against Peter Tom-

son, an apparel and footwear importer, in the 1990s; if so, what are the details.(2) Was the Tomson case similar to the Midford Paramount affair which occurred during the same

period.(3) Were the ACS officers in the Tomson matter the same officers criticised by the Parliamentary

Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its report No. 325, “The Midford Paramount Case and Re-lated Matters”.

(4) Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which the ACS handled the Tomson case; if not, whataction will the Minister take to review the case and reform the ACS.

(5) When does the ACS expect to complete its examination of the matters raised in the Tomson caseand respond to Mr Tomson’s legal representatives.

Mr Williams—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer tothe honourable member’s question:(1) Yes. In July 1993 a defended Australian Customs Service (Customs) prosecution was commenced

against Mr Tomson with respect to the alleged undervaluation of five shipments of importedclothing. During the course of the hearing the Magistrate ruled the prosecution had established aprima facie case for all of the informations laid. In June 1995, following evidence from severaldefence witnesses, the Magistrate dismissed the case against Mr Tomson.

(2) No. This case involved charges under the Customs Act 1901 for under valuation, while MidfordParamount involved charges under the Crimes Act 1914 for fraud. A prima facie case was estab-


lished as noted above. Any similarity relates to the fact that both matters involved importedclothing.

(3) The investigating officer in the Tomson matter was not involved in the investigation of the Mid-ford case. Some officers who provided evidence before the Midford inquiry would have had someinvolvement with the Tomson case.

(4) A detailed review of the matter by Counsel has been commissioned by Customs.(5) On the advice of Counsel, Customs responded to Mr Tomson’s legal representatives on 15 June

2001 seeking further and better particulars in relation to their allegations. Counsel had indicatedthat if such particulars were forthcoming in a timely manner he would be able to finalise his reportby 30 July 2001.

G & K O’Connor Meatworks(Question No. 2593)

Mr Bevis asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business,upon notice, on 24 May 2001:(1) How many meetings were held between management and/or representatives of G & K O’Connor

meatworks in Pakenham, Vic., and officers of his Department prior to a lockout being instituted inNovember 1998 and what was the nature of those meetings.

(2) What other contact was made between management and/or representatives of G & K O’Connormeatworks in Pakenham and officers of his Department prior to a lock out being instituted in No-vember 1998 and what was the nature of that contact.

(3) How many meetings were held between management and/or representatives of G & K O’Connormeatworks in Pakenham and officers of the Office of the Employment Advocate prior to a lockoutbeing instituted in November 1998 and what was the nature of those meetings.

(4) What other contact was made between management and/or representatives of G & K O’Connormeatworks in Pakenham and officers of the Office of the Employment Advocate prior to a lockoutbeing instituted in November 1998 and what was the nature of that contact.

(5) How many meetings were held between management and/or representatives of G & K O’Connormeatworks in Pakenham and the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and SmallBusiness or any staff in the Minister’s Office prior to a lockout being instituted in November 1998and what was the nature of those meetings.

(6) What other contact was held between management and/or representatives of G & K O’Connormeatworks in Pakenham and the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and SmallBusiness or any staff in the Minister’s Office prior to a lockout being instituted in November 1998and what was the nature of that contact.

(7) What was the nature of any material or advice provided by his Department or the Office of theEmployment Advocate to the management or representatives of G & K O’Connor’s meatworksand on how many occasions did his Department or the Office of the Employment Advocate corre-spond with the management or representatives of G & K O’Connor’s meatworks.

(8) What was the nature of any material or advice provided by his Department or the Office of theEmployment Advocate to the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and SmallBusiness or any staff in the Minister’s office and how many briefings were prepared for use by hisDepartment or the Office of the Employment Advocate to the then Minister for Employment,Workplace Relations and Small Business or any staff in the Minister’s office.

(9) When will he release the documents currently held by his Department on this issue.(10) What action has his Department or the Office of the Employment Advocate undertaken to investi-

gate the alleged intimidation and coercion by thugs hired by the management of G & KO’Connor’s meatworks as exposed on the Channel 9 Sunday program of 8 April 2001.

(11) If no action has been taken with regard to this allegation, who made the decision and on what ba-sis was this decision made.

(12) What action has been undertaken to investigate the claims by Mr Darren Wise that Mr BruceTownsend attempted to induce him to lie to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.


(13) If no action has been taken with regard to this allegation, who made the decision and on what ba-sis was this decision made.

Mr Abbott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) The lockout at G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, not

November 1998. One meeting was held between management and/or representatives of G & KO’Connor Pty Ltd and an officer of the Department prior to a lockout commencing in March1999. At this meeting, G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd provided information on developments in an in-dustrial dispute at the meatworks of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd.

(2) The lockout at G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, notNovember 1998. Prior to a lockout commencing in March 1999, according to the Department’srecords and to the best of the Department’s knowledge, there was telephone contact between man-agement and/or representatives of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd and officers of the Department onfour occasions. The nature of the contact was that G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd informed officers ofthe Department of developments in an industrial dispute at the meatworks of G & K O’Connor PtyLtd.

(3) The lockout at G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, notNovember 1998. No meetings were held between management and/or representatives of G & KO’Connor Pty Ltd and officers of the Office of the Employment Advocate, prior to a lockoutcommencing in March 1999.

(4) The lockout at G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, notNovember 1998. No contact was made between management and/or representatives of G & KO’Connor Pty Ltd and officers of the Office of the Employment Advocate, prior to a lockoutcommencing in March 1999.

(5) The lockout at G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, notNovember 1998. No meetings were held between management and/or representatives of G & KO’Connor Pty Ltd and the Minister prior to a lockout commencing in March 1999.One meeting was held between management and/or representatives of G & K O’Connor meat-works in Pakenham and staff in the then Minister’s office prior to a lockout commencing in March1999. At this meeting, G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd provided information on developments in an in-dustrial dispute at the meatworks of G & K O’Connor. (This is the same meeting referred to in theanswer to (1).)

(6) The lockout at G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, notNovember 1998. Prior to a lockout commencing in March 1999, staff in the then Minister’s officereceived a telephone call and then a facsimile from representatives of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd,requesting a meeting. The Ministers office subsequently confirmed a meeting time and date.

(7) According to the Department’s records and to the best of the Department’s knowledge, the De-partment of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided management orrepresentatives of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd with no written material, no written advice, nor anyother form of substantive advice in relation to the dispute at the G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd meatprocessing plant, or associated Australian Industrial Relations Commission and Federal Courtproceedings. The Department consulted management (on one occasion) and representatives of G& K O’Connor Pty Ltd as required by section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in rela-tion to a freedom of information application by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union(AMIEU).In 1999, the Department received one letter and five facsimiles from representatives of G & KO’Connor Pty Ltd. These all comprise covering notes, and copies of Australian Industrial Rela-tions Commission or Federal Court decisions, or documents lodged in relation to Australian In-dustrial Relations Commission or Federal Court proceedings. In 2000, the Department wrote torepresentatives of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd on one occasion (and also forwarded the same lettervia facsimile) and received one letter from representatives of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd. This cor-respondence related to a freedom of information application by the AMIEU. In 2001, the De-partment corresponded with representatives of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd on two occasions. Thefirst occasion involved forwarding by facsimile a letter from the Minister for Employment, Work-place Relations and Small Business to representatives of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd, which advisedof the Government’s having tabled certain documents in the Senate in response to a Senate Return


to Order motion. The Department subsequently forwarded by facsimile to G & K O’Connor’s le-gal representatives some of the documents that had been tabled in the Senate.The Office of the Employment Advocate provided management and/or representatives of G & KO’Connor Pty Ltd with information on logistical arrangements for the offering, lodgement andprocessing of Australian workplace agreements (AWAs), and with information about the Freedomof Association provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act). This information wasprovided in three meetings between staff of the Office of the Employment Advocate and manage-ment and/or representatives of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd. (Employers planning to make largenumbers of AWAs are encouraged in the Office of the Employment Advocate’s A How-to Guideto contact the Office to expedite the processing of the AWAs.)The Office of the Employment Advocate’s correspondence with management and/or representa-tives of G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd comprises filing receipts, approval notices and a refusal noticefor AWAs, as required by the Act; other routine correspondence concerning the filing and ap-proval of AWAs; and a letter advising the employer of the Deputy Employment Advocate’s inten-tion to refuse an AWA pursuant to s170VPB(4) of the Act.

(8) The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business provided the thenMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business with three briefings related todevelopments in the dispute at the G & K O’Connor Pty Ltd meat processing plant, as well asbriefing for use in Parliament. The Department provided staff of the then Minister’s office withone briefing on developments in the dispute, together with updates, either orally or via email.The Office of the Employment Advocate provided the then Minister for Employment, WorkplaceRelations and Small Business or his staff with five briefings. The briefings related to proceedingsbrought by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees’ Union against the Employment Advocateconcerning the application by the OEA of the no disadvantage test in assessing AWAs.

(9) On 28 June 2001, the Government tabled in the Senate the documents on this issue that it intendsto release.

(10) No action has been taken by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and SmallBusiness or the Office of the Employment Advocate to investigate the allegations aired on theChannel 9 Sunday program of 8 April 2001.

(11) No complaint regarding the matter was made to either the Department of Employment, WorkplaceRelations and Small Business or the Office of the Employment Advocate.

(12) No action has been taken by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and SmallBusiness or the Office of the Employment Advocate to investigate the claims by Mr Darren Wisethat Mr Bruce Townsend attempted to induce him to lie to the Australian Industrial RelationsCommission.

(13) No complaint regarding the matter was made to either the Department of Employment, WorkplaceRelations and Small Business or the Office of the Employment Advocate.

Product Stewardship (Oil) Regulations 2000(Question No. 2598)

Mr Martyn Evans asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment andHeritage, upon notice, on 24 May 2001:(1) Since the commencement of the Product Stewardship (Oil) Regulations 2000 how many compa-

nies have sought and been paid the subsidy specified in Regulation 4 in each of the categorieslisted and what amount in total has been paid under each category.

(2) Are analytical laboratory tests readily available for each of the criteria set out in Schedule 1 ineach of the capital cities of the States.

(3) Which laboratories have been approved by the relevant authorities and are they able to conduct allof the tests required by the Regulations.

(4) What is the estimated cost of having a sample evaluated for the purposes of the maximum pay-ment of 50 cents under Regulation 4.

(5) What is the maximum level of polychlorinated biphenyls permitted under clause 3 of Schedule 1of the Regulations and is this level consistent with other maximum permitted levels of this chemi-


cal under other Commonwealth legislation such as food standards and other environmental stan-dards.

(6) Was the level required by the US Environment Protection Agency test evaluated for consistencywith other Commonwealth and State legislation prior to the adoption of the Regulation; if so, is itconsistent.

(7) Is there any reason to believe that there are significant levels of dioxins in recycled oil products inAustralia; if so, what would be the principal sources of such contamination.

(8) Is the maximum level allowed under the Product Stewardship (Oil) Regulations 2000 consistentwith the levels specified under the polychlorinated biphenyls management plan.

Mr Truss—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following an-swer to the honourable member’s question:(1) As at the end of April 2001 (ie 4 months into the program):

• 24 recyclers were registered under the product stewardship arrangements• 15 recyclers had made claims and been paid benefits• total payments under each category were:

Category $

1 0

2 102

3 317,273

4 43,694

5 509,754

6 620,700

Total 1,491,523

(2) Tests are readily available in Australia for all the criteria with the exception of the Modified Amestest (clause 1), which is available in the United States. This test was included in the criteria as it isrecognised as the only test capable of identifying a particular range of carcinogens that may bepresent in re-refined waste oil. As there are currently no operations in Australia carrying out fullre-refining of waste oils, Australian laboratories haven’t yet geared up to do the test. We have hadindications from some Australian and New Zealand laboratories that they would be prepared to setup to do the testing, depending on a variety of market considerations (eg if there was going to besufficient demand).

(3) Many Australian environmental laboratories can carry out testing for polyaromatic hydrocarbons(clause 2), polychlorinated biphenyls (clause 3) and dioxins (clause 4). Testing laboratories ac-credited to do particular tests are identified on the National Association of Testing Authorities(NATA) Directory, available on the NATA website. The total acid number test (clause 1) and theappearance test (clause 5) are widely available from industry and independent petroleum producttesting laboratories in Australia.

(4) Proponents should evaluate the market themselves. The modified Ames is by far the most expen-sive test at approximately $US1500/test which would drop as testing frequency increased. Notethat the Regulations require testing of Category 1 oils only every six months.

(5) to (8)Clause 3 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations requires that the oil must contain less than 0.1 mg ofpolychlorinated biphenyls for each kilogram of oil, demonstrated by meeting the criteria men-tioned in US-EPA test SW-846 8082.Under the National PCB Management Plan material containing more than 50 mg of PCB per kilo-gram becomes a Scheduled Waste and cannot be transported without evoking special provisions.This 50mg/kilogram limit is consistent with the level at which a waste becomes Scheduled under


the Basel Convention and can only be transported across international borders in controlled cir-cumstances. Under the National Plan, waste containing between 2 and 50 mg of PCBs is non-Scheduled, and must be dealt with appropriately at the end of its useful life. Wastes containingless than 2mg/kg are considered "PCB free".Note that the standards are different between the Regulations and the PCB Management Plan asthe two standards are aimed at quite different ends. The PCB Management Plan is a waste man-agement plan, focussed on proper disposal routes of known PCB-contaminated wastes. TheRegulations on the other hand prescribe high health, safety and environmental compliance levelsfor a product to allow it to receive government benefits, with a view to preventing PCB contami-nated oils entering the environment in the first place.The Australian and New Zealand Food Authority puts PCBs in a category that requires ’no detect-able residue’ (Food Standards Code Volume 2). Almost all PCBs that impact upon humans are in-gested in food. In June 1999, large quantities of chickens and eggs were destroyed in Belgiumwhen they were found to contain high levels of both dioxins and PCBs. The source of this con-tamination was traced to industrial oils being used as a feedstock to manufacture chicken feed.Where waste oil has a PCB content of less than 2 ppm, most State EPAs allow this oil to be burntin designated facilities, and if the concentration is over 2ppm but less than 50 ppm it must be di-luted until the PCB concentration falls to the 2 ppm level. Note that State requirements may notbe uniform in this respect. Note also that in these situations the waste oil is known to be PCBcontaminated and is thus treated appropriately. This situation is not analogous to situations wherere-refined oil may contain PCBs (in the absence of government requirements) and which is muchmore likely to come into direct skin contact of mechanics for example.The Regulations require that, to qualify for the top benefit payment, re-refined oil must not con-tain polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (‘dioxins’), as demonstrated by meeting the criteria men-tioned in EPA test SWA-846 8290.While chlorine compounds are not found in virgin base oils, they may be added during either themanufacture or use of the final virgin oil products. The presence of chlorine compounds in oil mayalso result in some dioxin formation during its use in motor vehicles, hence some potential pres-ence in waste oils. The dioxins in a re-refined waste oil product may therefore be formed duringthe use of the original product, or through the effects of the re-refining process on chlorine com-pounds present in the waste oil.There have been several incidents in Australia where dioxin contamination of waste oil has lead toemissions of PCBs. The most recent was in 1999 in Victoria when the EPA discovered dioxincontaminated waste oil at 5 re-use facilities, including a pet-food manufacturer, a cement kiln anda tourist train.

Second Sydney Airport: Sydney West(Question No. 2599)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4June 2001:(1) Further to part (5) of the answer to question No 2305 (Hansard 4, June 2001, page 27227), (a) is

Bankstown Airport not Sydney West Airport, (b) does Badgerys Creek remain the site for SydneyWest Airport and (c) is the Government’s 13 December 2000 announcement to shelve BadgerysCreek factually wrong in light of his answer to question 2305.

(2) Further to part (11) of the answer to question No 2305, (a) do the decisions taken by the Govern-ment to lease Sydney Airport without embedding terms in the lease constitute a major compro-mise of the Government’s ability to ensure that a second airport is actually built at BadgerysCreek, (b) in light of his reply that the operator of Sydney Airport will be given the first right ofrefusal to build and operate any such airport, will he clarify whether this right in the hands of thelessee compromises the further review of Sydney’s airport needs in 2005, (c) what statutory orcontractual provisions, if any, now survive to ensure that an airport can and will be built at Badg-erys Creek, (d) is a second airport for Sydney still part of its strategy for solving Sydney’s airportnoise problems, (e) upon what advice has the Government based its 13 December 2000 decision toshelve Badgerys Creek, expand Sydney Airport and use Bankstown Airport as an overflow air-port, (f) how will the Government fulfil its 1996 Election aviation policy in solving Sydney’s air-


craft noise problems in light of (i) its decision to seek a further review of Sydney’s airport needs in2005 and (ii) failing to fully implement the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP), in light of his an-swer to part (3) of question No 2307 (Hansard, 23 May 2001, page 25926) advising that the LTOPforecast of 17% movements to the north of Sydney Airport continually fail to be met, with actualaggregate movements at 27.3%.

(3) Further to parts (8) and (10) of the answer to question No. 2305, has he taken advice on whetherthe operation of these sections including their statutory intent as demonstrated in the then Ministerfor Transport and Regional Services second reading speech, are compromised; if so, (a) on whoseadvice does he rely and (b) will he furnish copies of this advice in Parliament.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) (a) Bankstown Airport is not Sydney West Airport.

(b) The Government announced that it will retain ownership of the Badgerys Creek site and willlegislate to protect the site from incompatible development in surrounding areas. The Gov-ernment has made no decision on the site for a second major airport for Sydney.

(c) No.(2) (a) No.

(b) The lessee of Sydney Airport will have no power to prevent the Government reviewing Syd-ney’s airport needs in 2005.

(c) The sale arrangements for Sydney Airport will not prevent the development of a secondmajor airport for Sydney if a future Federal Government decided that such developmentshould proceed.

(d) While concluding that it would be premature to build a second major airport for Sydney, theGovernment decided to retain the Badgerys Creek site thereby preserving the opportunity fora future Federal Government to decide whether or not airport development on the site shouldproceed.

(e) The Government took account of a range of material including the comprehensive and pub-licly available Environmental Impact Statement on the second Sydney Airport proposal forBadgerys Creek.

(f) The Government has addressed the aircraft noise issue by providing for a substantially moreequitable sharing of noise compared with the arrangements in place prior to March 1996 andby continuing the aircraft noise insulation program begun by the previous Government.

(3) In the context of the sale of Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport the Commonwealth has sought andreceived confidential advice in relation to the provisions in the Airports Act 1996 dealing with theissue of Sydney West Airport and this advice will be taken into account in the detailed sale ar-rangements for the Airport.

Defence: Salt Ash Weapons Range(Question No. 2603)

Mr Horne asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Did US Air Force aircraft use the Salt Ash Weapons Range on or about 23 May 2001; if so, (a)

how many aircraft and (b) for what duration.(2) Did former Minister McLachlan ban foreign aircraft from using the Salt Ash Weapons Range; if

so, who gave permission for the aircraft to use the field.Mr Reith—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

(1) No.(2) The Air Force is unaware of any commitment made by Minister McLachlan to ban foreign mili-

tary aircraft using the Salt Ash Air Weapons Range.In 1998, RAAF Williamtown base management took the initiative to decline requests to use therange from other than Williamtown based aircraft in an effort to reduce the impact of noise on thelocal community. The last foreign aircraft to use the range were from the Royal New Zealand AirForce, in September 1998. Since then, only aircraft based at Williamtown have used the range.

Bass Electorate: Pensions and Allowances(Question No. 2607)

Ms O’Byrne asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and CommunityServices, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) How many (a) disability pensioners, (b) aged pensioners and (c) Common Youth Allowance re-

cipients reside in the electoral division of Bass.


(2) How many (a) disability pensioners, (b) aged pensioners and (c) Common Youth Allowance re-cipients reside in each of the postcode areas within the electoral division of Bass.

Mr Anthony—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the fol-lowing answer to the honourable member’s question:NOTE:The information in the tables below is data by postcode. Due to the placement of Electoral

boundaries across postcodes, Centrelink cannot extract figures for Payments in Electoral divi-sions with any accuracy.

(1) Age Pension

PostCode

7212 7248 7249 7250 7252 7253 7254 7255 7257 7258 7259

No. <20 1466 1110 5204 190 499 42 23 <20 <20 60PostCode

7260 7261 7262 7263 7264 7265 7267 7268 7277 7290

No. 354 59 270 46 73 21 40 80 255 <20

(2) Youth Allowance

Post Code 7212 7248 7249 7250 7252 7253 7254 7255 7257 7258 7259

No. <20 964 263 1678 42 108 <20 <20 <20 <20 26

Post Code 7260 7261 7262 7263 7264 7265 7267 7268 7277 7290

No. 41 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 22 30 <20

(3) Disability Support Pension

Post Code 7212 7248 7249 7250 7252 7253 7254 7255 7257 7258 7259

No. <20 838 371 1697 85 315 <20 <20 <20 <20 32

Post Code 7260 7261 7262 7263 7264 7265 7267 7268 7277 7290

No. 75 23 66 <20 41 <20 <20 33 57 <20

Note: Figures represented with <20 are confidential and therefore not provided.

Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Risk Analysis(Question No. 2612)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4June 2001:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 2311 (Hansard, 22 May 2001, page 25772), will he table a

copy of the risk analysis in the House; if so, when; if not, why not.(2) In light of the finding in that risk analysis, what impact, if any, will the (a) installation and opera-

tion of the Precision Runway Monitoring System, (b) proposed changes to the Slots ManagementScheme 1998, (c) expansion of Sydney Airport as announced by the Government on 13 December2000 and (d) change the use of Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport as also announced on 13December 2000 now have on the probabilities described in his answer.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) The Environmental Impact Statement for Sydney Airport’s Third Runway is a publicly available

document.(2) The specific risk analysis data requested by the Honourable Member is not available. The Gov-

ernment is committed to ensuring that the highest priority is placed on aviation safety. Nochanges will be made to the operating arrangements at Sydney or Bankstown Airports unless allsafety standards are fully complied with.


Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4June 2001:


(1) Further to his answer to question No. 2309 (Hansard, 24 May 2001, page 26023), are significantsegments of Bankstown City already subject to Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) 25 orhigher from aircraft noise emanating from that airport.

(2) Is aircraft noise emanating from Bankstown Airport set to worsen from the impact of the Govern-ment’s announcement on 13 December 2000 to use Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport; ifso, over what areas.

(3) Is he aware that Bankstown City Council already has affectations on title and noise contour mapsindicating the ANEF noise levels of existing residents.

(4) Does the Government’s announcement on 13 December 2000 in respect of Bankstown Airportmean that those aircraft noise contours are to widen the affectation of aircraft noise affected resi-dents; if so, will he describe the impact.

(5) Will he afford the same insulation for those houses that are offered for persons suffering aircraftnoise from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if so, when will that noise insulation announce-ment be made.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1), (2), (4) and (5) It is anticipated that there will be changes to the patterns of noise exposure around

Bankstown Airport as a result of it being used as an overflow airport for Sydney Aiport. Any pro-posal for upgrading the facilities and operational aspects of Bankstown Airport will be consideredagainst the requirements of the Airports Act 1996 and the Environment Protection and Biodiver-sity Conservation Act 1999. I will be recommending to the Environment Minister that the privatesector lessee should be required to do a full environmental impact statement (EIS) into the up-grading of Bankstown Airport. Any changes to noise exposure patterns around Bankstown Air-port resulting from the upgrading and the question of noise insulation would be examined as partof this EIS process.

(3) I am advised that Bankstown City Council does include advice about aircraft noise exposure oncertificates issued under section 149 of the Environmental Planning And Assessment Act 1979.


Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heri-tage, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Further to the Minister’s answer to question No. 2426 (Hansard, 22 May 2001, page 25808) con-

cerning Sydney West Airport and the Minister’s responses referring to the ‘Second Sydney Air-port Proposal’, for the purposes of section 6 of the Airports Act, does the ‘Second Sydney AirportProposal’ and the term ‘Sydney West Airport’ under that Act, mean the same thing; if not, can theterm ‘Sydney West Airport’ have any meaning other than the ‘Second Sydney Airport Proposal’;if so, what other meaning can it have.

(2) Is the Second Sydney Airport Proposal for which the Minister conducted an environmental impactstatement a proposal to locate the Sydney West Airport at Badgerys Creek.

(3) Does the Second Sydney Airport Proposal mean an international airport at Badgerys Creek.(4) Does Sydney West Airport not mean Bankstown Airport.

Mr Truss—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following an-swer to the honourable member’s question:(1) Yes. While not specifically defined as Sydney West Airport in the Airports Act 1996 the Sydney

West Airport is generally interpreted to be the Second Sydney Airport.(2) Yes. The Second Sydney Airport proposal for which an EIS was conducted was a proposal to

locate a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek.(3) Yes. The EIS for a Second Sydney Airport included an assessment of the staged development of

an international airport at Badgerys Creek.(4) Sydney West Airport does not mean Bankstown Airport.

Veterans: Entitlements(Question No. 2625)

Mr Price asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:


(1) How many surviving members of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces who served inJapan between 1945 and 1952 are there.

(2) What is the annual estimated cost of granting those veterans a Gold Card.(3) How many ADF personnel served at Woomera during atomic testing.(4) How many of those veterans are surviving and what is the estimated annual cost of granting them

full veterans’ entitlements.

Mr Bruce Scott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) It is estimated there are 4,300 surviving veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces

(Japan) (BCOF).(2) Many of these surviving veterans have service in WWII or in a later conflict and have a Gold Card

and it is estimated that about 1000 of them do not have a Gold Card.The Government has introduced a Charter of Budget Honesty, under which the Opposition canhave new policy proposals formally costed by the Department of Finance and Administration.This would be the proper mechanism under which the question on the estimated cost should besubmitted.

(3) My Department has compiled a draft nominal roll of those who were involved in atomic testing atMaralinga, Emu Field and Monte Bello Island. The roll includes both ADF personnel and civil-ians. The roll has been compiled for the purpose of a health study into mortality rates and cancerincidence among this group. No atomic testing took place at Woomera, however, personnel basedat Woomera may have been at other sites when atomic tests took place. The information sought inthe honourable member’s question is not readily available because the Department of Defence hasno nominal roll of ADF personnel who served at Woomera at this time. To collect and assemblesuch information solely for the purpose of answering the question would be a major task and I amnot prepared to authorise the expenditure and effort that would be required.

(4) Only when the roll is complete will it be possible to provide costs for full veterans’ entitlementsfor all those involved in atomic testing.

National Estate: Cumberland Plain(Question No. 2636)

Mr Price asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage,upon notice, on 5 June 2001:(1) Has the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) listed any of the former Australian Defence In-

dustries Munitions Factory Site at St Mary’s; if so (a) which areas and (b) how many hectares areinvolved in each area.

(2) Is the AHC land high, medium or low value Cumberland Plain.(3) Is the Minister able to say whether all the high and medium value Cumberland Plain is preserved

under the State Government regional environment plan.(4) What is the total size of the high and medium value Cumberland Plain being preserved.(5) In making its assessment what were the values and factors that the AHC took into account, and

did they include (a) size, (b) representativeness on a regional scale, (c) representativeness on aproperty (local) scale, (d) rarity (threatened species), (e) rarity (regionally rare), (f) diversity, (g)naturalness, (h) connectivity, (i) fragmentation, (j) ease of management, (k) strategic importance,(l) sustainability, (m) conservation, (n) community services, (o) total water cycle management, (p)transport, (q) waste management, (r) employment and economic development, (s) air quality, (t)heritage (u) open space and recreation, (v) soil and salinity, (w) urban form, (x) housing and landsupply and (y) energy efficiency.

(6) Given the 1600 hectares of land in question; what were the studies that the AHC undertook inreaching its decisions.

Mr Truss—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following an-swer to the honourable member’s question:(1) The Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) listed part of the Australian Defence Industries site

at St Mary’s on the Register of the National Estate on 26 October 1999; The AHC listed an area


of Cumberland Shale Plains Woodland and an area of Shale/Gravel Transition Forest also knownas Castlereagh Woodland. Cumberland Shale Plains Woodland is listed as endangered under theEnvironment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; in total the listing comprisesabout 800 hectares of the entire site.

(2) The AHC believes that its boundary encompasses most of the high and medium value CumberlandShale Plains Woodland on the site. The AHC commissioned an additional on-ground survey spe-cifically to identify those areas to the west of the site, outside the boundary identified under theState Government regional environment plan, which might contain Cumberland Plain Woodland.

(3) The NSW Section 22 Committee, established by the NSW Ministry for Planning to oversight therezoning of St Mary’s, accepted an average of 21% of the 57 “characteristic” species as sufficientto establish the presence of Cumberland Plain Woodland. The AHC areas additional to the NSWregional environment plan boundary contain an average of 33% of the species identified as “char-acteristic” of Cumberland Shale Plains.

(4) The NSW regional environment plan encompasses about 320 hectares of Cumberland PlainWoodland.

(5) The AHC, in making a decision to list part of the St Mary’s site, conformed to the requirements ofthe Australian Heritage Commission Act, which focus on the aesthetic, historic, scientific or socialsignificance of the natural and cultural environments of Australia, for future generations as well asthe present community (s.4).In considering any objection to inclusion of a place on the Register of the National Estate theCommission is required to give “upmost consideration to the significance, as part of the nationalestate, of the place”.In listing Cumberland Plains Woodland at St Mary’s, the AHC took into account its heritage value(t) as a remnant of an endangered vegetation community with greatly reduced distribution (a)within the shale plains west of Sydney (b, c, d, e). Studies by both New South Wales and theCommonwealth show that the Cumberland Plain Woodland represented at St Mary’s demonstratesbetween 21%-30% of species “characteristic” of the community (f). Although the vegetationcommunities at St Mary’s are almost entirely regrowth since the 1940s they constitute one of thelargest, single areas of a robust vegetation type capable of regeneration if managed appropriately(g,h,i).AHC expressed the view that as much as possible should be conserved of a vegetation communityof which there is as little as 8% extant (m).Since the remit of the AHC is to consider the presence or absence of a heritage value it did nottake into account matters which are properly the province of State and or local governments (j, k,l,n,o,p,q,r,s,u,v,w,x,y).

(6) In reaching its decision in regard to the listing of part of the St Mary’s site, the AHC had access tothe following surveys and reports:Benson DH (1992) The natural vegetation of the Penrith 1:100 000 map sheet. Cunninghamia2(4). Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney.Benson DH and Howell J (1990) Taken for Granted: the bushland of Sydney and its suburbs.Kangaroo Press, Sydney.Benson DH and Howell J (1991) Rare Bushland Plants of Western Sydney. Royal Botanic Gar-dens, Sydney.Benson JS and Redpath PA (1997) The Nature of pre-European Native Vegetation in South-Eastern Australia: a critique of Ryan DG, Ryan JR and Starr BJ (1995) The Australian Landscape -Observations of Explorers and Early Settlers. Cunninghamia 5(2) Royal Botanic Gardens, Syd-ney.Doherty M (1987) Remnant vegetation of the Cumberland Plain: Conservation and ManagementPriorities A report to the National Parks Association of NSW.DUAP (1996) Regional Environmental Study, ADI St Mary’s. Department of Urban Affairs andPlanning.DUAP (1997) Report of the Section 22 Advisory Committee for the ADI Site St Mary’s. Depart-ment of Urban Affairs and Planning, NSW.


ERM Mitchell McCotter Pty Ltd (1998) Draft South Creek and Ropes Creek Corridors Conserva-tion and Recreation Strategy. Unpublished draft report for the Joint Steering Committee Mem-bers.Fanning FD (1995) ADI St Mary’s Facility Flora Survey Bomb and north Bomb Sectors. Unpub-lished Gunninah Consultants.Fanning FD (1995) ADI St Mary’s Facility Distribution of Endangered Flora Pyro Park. Unpub-lished Gunninah Consultants.Fanning FD (1995) ADI St Mary’s Facility Planning Study - Flora and Fauna Issues. UnpublishedGunninah Consultants.Fanning FD (1996) ADI St Mary’s Facility Flora Survey Ropes Creek Area. Unpublished Gun-ninah Consultants.Greenslade P. (1993) Nomination for Register of the National Estate, Australian Heritage Com-mission: Castlereagh Woodland Corridor for Buprestidae. Unpublished report.Gunninah Consultants (1997) ADI Site St Mary’s. Biological Assessment Report. Vol 2. Appendi-ces. March 1997. Unpublished report.Kinhill Engineers (1995) Australian Defence Industries Site - St Mar’ys. Regional EnvironmentalStudy Technical Report No.4. Characteristics of the Site. Prepared for Joint Planning Team. De-partment of Urban Affairs and Planning.Nature Conservation Council of NSW (1991) Western Sydney Urban Bushland Survey . Volume1. Nature Conservation Council of NSW.NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1997) Urban Bushland Biodiversity Survey of WesternSydney. Vol 1 and appendices. NSW NPWS.Webb H and Foley A. (1996) Review of Urban Bushland and Recommendations for its Protection., Volume 1 A report to the Nature Conservation Council and the Total Environment Centre, Syd-ney.In addition the AHC commissioned the following:Doherty M (1996) Report on One Day Field Inspection of Selected Areas at Australian DefenceIndustries Site, St Mary’s, Sydney. Unpublished Report for the Australian Heritage Commission.Biosis Research Assessment of Objection to Listing of Western Sydney Shale Woodland StMary’s, October 1998.Ian Perkins Consultancy Services Flora Assessment of the Disputed Areas of the of Western Syd-ney Shale Woodlands Report to the Australian Heritage Commission, February 1999.

Bathurst Boer War Memorial(Question No. 2638)

Mr Price asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 2001:(1) Did Lord Kitchener visit Australia in 1910.(2) Did Lord Kitchener refuse to unveil a war memorial in Bathurst to those who served in the Boer

War unless the name of Lieutenant Handcock was removed.(3) If so, does this accord with current Government policy.(4) What action has been taken to restore Lt Handcock’s name to the memorial.

Mr Bruce Scott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) I am advised that Field Marshal Lord Kitchener visited Australia from December 1909 to Febru-

ary 1910 to inspect its military force and installations and advise on military reform.(2) Lord Kitchener visited Bathurst on 10 January 1910 to unveil the local Boer War Memorial and

present a prize to a local rifle club. Lieutenant Handcock’s name was not on the memorial at thattime; nor is there any archival evidence that Lieutenant Handcock’s name was among the names tobe included on the memorial in the first place.

(3) Local memorials, such as the Bathurst Boer War Memorial, are the responsibility of local commu-nities and local government authorities. Responsibility for their ongoing maintenance rests withthose authorities.


(3) I am further advised that Lieutenant Handcock’s name was added to the memorial in 1964.

Veterans: Gold Card(Question No. 2639)

Mr Price asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 2001:(1) What categories of persons who served in World War II are eligible for a Gold Card.(2) What is the surviving number of persons in each category and what is the estimated per annum

cost per category of granting the Gold Card to them.(3) What categories of persons who served in World War II are not eligible for a Gold Card.(4) What is the surviving number of persons in each category and what is the estimated cost per cate-

gory of extending the Gold Card to them.

Mr Bruce Scott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) A Gold Card is issued to all World War II veterans of Australia’s Defence Force (ADF) and Aus-

tralia’s merchant navy who:• are ex-prisoners of war; or• served in the ADF between 3 September 1939 and 29 October 1945, who have qualifying

service from this period of hostilities and who are aged 70 years and over; or• receive a disability pension at or above 100% of the general rate; or• received a disability pension for pulmonary tuberculosis before 2 November 1978.Some veterans of Commonwealth or allied World War II forces are eligible for a Gold Card, ifthey:• have qualifying service from World War II and lived in Australia immediately prior to enlist-

ment in the Commonwealth or allied force; or• are mariners who served on a Commonwealth or allied ship and if they, or their dependants

were residing in Australia for at least 12 months immediately prior to the commencement oftheir service on that ship.

(2) Below are the numbers of veterans from the above categories currently in receipt of Gold Cards:World War II veterans and ‘other categories’, 144,888Commonwealth and allied veterans, 268

The estimated average health care cost to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs per Gold Cardholder in 2000-2001 is $8,200.

(3) Persons who served in World War II who are not eligible for a Gold Card are:• Ex-members of the ADF or Australia’s merchant navy who:

- do not have qualifying service from that conflict, that is did not serve between 3 Septem-ber 1939 and 29 October 1945, or who did serve during this period but did not incur dan-ger from hostile forces of the enemy during this time;

- are not in receipt of disability pension at 100% or more of the general rate.• Commonwealth and allied veterans who are now living in Australia but were not members of

the ADF.(4) The Government has introduced a Charter of Budget Honesty, under which the Opposition can

have new policy proposals formally costed by the Department of Finance and Administration.This would be the proper mechanism under which the above question should be submitted.

Education: Schools Funding(Question No. 2642)

Mr Latham asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on5 June 2001:What is the range, from the lowest level of school funding to the highest level, of general recurrentfunding per student in each State and Territory within (a) government school systems, (b) Catholicschool systems and (c) independent schools.

Dr Kemp—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:


(a) The Commonwealth provides funds to the States and Territories for government schools on thebasis of reported full time equivalent enrolments. Actual disaggregation of Commonwealth, ortotal funding from the State/Territory to individual schools is not part of the data collected by theCommonwealth.

(b) Recurrent funding provided by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments is given toeach State/Territory Catholic system in bulk according to per capita rates. The figures below rep-resent the reported allocation of this money by the system.

Sector: Catholic School Systems

School Type

State Highest/

Lowest Combined Primary Secondary All Schools

ACT Lowest $4,329 $2,898 $4,527 $2,898

Highest $4,402 $3,877 $4,656 $4,656

NSW Lowest $1,837 $944 $1,125 $944

Highest $5,014 $11,457 $14,109 $14,109

NT Lowest $4,096 $2,760 $5,241 $2,760

Highest $4,405 $5,043 $7,191 $7,191

QLD Lowest $2,152 $2,824 $3,759 $2,152

Highest $4,831 $8,050 $7,477 $8,050

SA Lowest $2,968 $2,642 $4,208 $2,642

Highest $4,684 $8,400 $16,920 $16,920

TAS Lowest $4,083 $2,783 $4,709 $2,783

Highest $5,017 $4,615 $5,628 $5,628

VIC Lowest $2,108 $2,148 $3,853 $2,108

Highest $4,597 $7,864 $6,568 $7,864

WA Lowest $3,623 $2,507 $4,146 $2,507

Highest $16,248 $9,527 $13,799 $16,248

Total Lowest $1,837 $944 $1,125 $944

Total Highest $16,248 $11,457 $16,920 $16,920

(c) The Independent Schools sector is a mix of both systemic schools and non-systemic schools. Thefigures below represent the recurrent grants received by the schools from the Commonwealth andStates/Territories based either on direct funding or allocation by a system as reported by the indi-vidual schools.

Sector: Independent Schools

School Type

State Highest/


ACT Lowest $1,746 $2,489 $3,626 $1,746

Highest $3,437 $4,987 $3,626 $4,987


School Type

State Highest/


NSW Lowest $1,086 $737 $561 $561

Highest $5,114 $9,869 $5,520 $9,869

NT Lowest $3,967 $3,432 $6,493 $3,432 Highest $5,677 $9,661 $8,555 $9,661

QLD Lowest $362 $2,015 $2,533 $362

Highest $7,714 $7,706 $10,419 $10,419

SA Lowest $1,415 $1,380 $2,361 $1,380

Highest $5,123 $8,812 $5,584 $8,812

TAS Lowest $2,201 $2,064 $3,835 $2,064 Highest $5,117 $3,633 $3,835 $5,117

VIC Lowest $959 $735 $307 $307

Highest $5,684 $4,048 $6,340 $6,340

WA Lowest $1,324 $2,160 $3,520 $1,324

Highest $12,410 $13,878 $10,914 $13,878

Total Lowest $362 $735 $307 $307Total Highest $12,410 $13,878 $10,914 $13,878

Defence: Saltash Weapons Range(Question No. 2643)

Mr Horne asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 June 2001:(1) Is the newly acquired British Aerospace Hawk lead-in fighter now using the Salt Ash Weapons

Range.(2) Has an environmental impact statement (EIS) been prepared for the use of the range by these air-

craft; if so, has it been released for public perusal and discussion.(3) Can the aircraft use the range if an EIS has not been prepared.

Mr Reith—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) Yes, but authorisation has not been given to use training weapons.(2) The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon Robert Hill, has been consulted

about the introduction of the Hawk Lead-in-Fighter into service with the RAAF. On 12 June2001, Senator Hill directed that the Department of Defence submit an Environmental ImpactStatement (EIS). When it has been developed, the EIS will be released and public commentsought.

(3) The legislative process under which this proposal is being considered, the Environment Protection(Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, does provide for matters under consideration to continue pendingthe outcome of the formal EIS process.

Child Care: Funding(Question No. 2647)

Mrs Crosio asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and CommunityServices, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:


(1) What total sum of Commonwealth funds were made available in the last funding round of theminor capital upgrading program for child care centres.

(2) How many child care centres in NSW made an application for a minor capital upgrading grant.

(3) Which child care centres in NSW were successful in their application for a minor capital upgrad-ing grant and what sum was each granted.

(4) Did the application for minor capital upgrading of air conditioning, drainage and safety glass fromthe Fairfield City Council Child Care Centre at Bossley Park meet the eligibility criteria for fund-ing, as outlined in the application guidelines.

(5) On what grounds was the application from that child care centre for a minor capital upgrade grantrejected.

(6) When will applications be called for future funding rounds of the minorcapital upgrading pro-gram.

(7) Will child care centres that applied for minor capital upgrade grants in previous funding rounds beeligible to apply for grants in future funding rounds; if not, why not.

(8) Will the eligibility criteria for applicants be altered in future funding rounds.

(9) Will child care centres whose application met the eligibility criteria but were still unsuccessful inreceiving a minor capital upgrade grant be given priority in future funding rounds; if not, why not.

Mr Anthony—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the fol-lowing answer to the honourable member’s question:(1) $2.4 Million

(2) 301

(3)

Service Name GrantPadstow Community Child Care Centre 6,376Roslyn Hall Children’s Centre 6,435Macquarie Park Child Care Centre 2,306Hornsby Nursery and Preschool 1,371Cherrybrook Nursery and Preschool 8,364Chester Hill Community Child Care 5,544Greenacre Community Child Care Centre 15,226Blinky Bill Portland Child Care Centre 13,050Cardiff Early Education & Care Centre Inc 6,773Hassall Grove Child Care Centre 5,265Keymer Child Care Centre 15,613Ridge-Ee-Didge Children’s Centre 5,060Plumpton Occasional Care Centre 2,860Mt Druitt Church of Christ Child Care Centre 7,000John Armitage Child Care Centre 4,565Nan Moran Child Care Centre 19,754Koala Corner Children’s Centre 4,360Susanna Children’s Centre 17,303Canberra Road Child Care Centre 7,254Dianella St Child Care Centre 6,504Gamumbi Child Care Centre 6,465Ngaku Aboriginal Corporation Multipurpose Centre 16,887Kempsey Pre-School and Nursery School 12,852Woolgoolga Child Care Centre 8,812Gumnut Cottage Child Care Centre 7,929Kenny Street Long Day Care Centre 4,114James Mitchell Care and Learning Centre 5,815Rainbow Cottage Children’s Centre 12,863Niagara Park Children’s Centre 4,012Hinchinbrook Multipurpose Centre 2,237


Service Name GrantHuz ‘N’ Buz Child Care Centre 7,900Vattana Neighbourhood Children’s Centre 18,160Kids Korner Combined Occasional Care 4,004Infants’ Home Long Day Care 15,200Astral Drive Child Care Centre 3,289Blacktown Anglican Child Care Centre 5,489Kurung Child Care Centre 16,881Bob Sinclair Child Care Centre 2,816Kings Langley Child Care Centre 8,288Kerry Jones Child Care Centre 4,441Lalor Park Child Care Centre 2,600Mudgee Child Care Centre 6,681Nurruby Child Care Centre & Preschool 7,667Bradman Road Child Care Centre 9,589Holsworthy Children’s Centre 9,665Soldiers Road Child Care Centre 4,613Colleen Gale Children’s Centre 8,731Blue Gum Cottage Children’s Centre 12,034Randwick Open Care for Kids 5,126POW (Prince of Wales) Place Community ChildCare Centre

30,298

Blue Emu Children’s Centre 14,765Euroka Children’s Centre 3,520Platypus Playground Children 5,470Yoorami Children’s Centre 18,264Kurralee Children’s Centre 8,785Ardill House Children’s Centre 7,980Cuddlepie Pre-School & Day Care Centre 4,950Amber Cottage Child Care Centre 9,900Bunya Child Care Centre 22,587Golden Valley Child Care Centre Inc 21,120Hazelwood Child Care Centre 9,947Hobartville Long Day Preschool Inc 38,843McGrath’s Hill Children’s Centre 21,850Kids of the Castle Occasional Care 8,052Awabakal Child Care Centre 9,354Hunter Women’s Child Care Service 5,084Samaritans Community Child Care Centre 3,590Guyra Preschool and Long Day Care Centre 10,516Catherine Campbell Long Day Care Centre 9,878Kelly’s Place Children’s Centre 9,900Kubby House Cobar Occasional Child Care 6,214Allira Multi-Purpose Gathering Association 11,408Trundle Multi-Purpose Children’s Centre 13,805Salamander Child Care Centre 5,601Fairfield Nursery School 1,276The Parks Occasional Care 4,960Smithfield Child Care Centre 6,028Wetherill Park Child Care Centre 8,679Greystanes Uniting Church Child Care Centre 9,100Auburn Long Day Care Centre 4,059Holroyd Children’s Centre 27,793Wenty Children’s Centre 9,900Frances Fisk Child Care Centre 8,600Rainbow Children’s Centre 1,600Hay Plains Child Care Centre 10,340Hampden Bridge Child Care Centre 6,542


Service Name GrantPapalya Children’s Centre 2,200Woy Woy Peninsula Child Care Centre 15,620Mt Hutton Child Care Centre 1,170Lance Kindergarten and Child Care Centre 5,080SDN Erskineville Nursery School 7,546Amigoss Long Day Care Centre 14,670Koonawarra Children’s Centre 11,800Warilla Occasional Child Care Centre 9,632Noogaleek Children’s Centre 7,588Iluka Childcare Centre 5,148Wombat Willows Child Care Centre 7,932Amarina Child Care Centre 4,571Kabbarli Early Learning Centre 3,190

(4) Yes.(5) Each project in each application was individually assessed and assigned a ranking. As funds were

limited, only those projects with the highest ranking were approved to receive funding. Rankingwas assigned on the demonstrated urgency of each project as it related to health, safety and/or li-censing concerns and in relation to other projects. Each project for the Fairfield City CouncilChild Care Centre (known as the Janice Crosio Child Care Centre), Bossley Park, met the criteria,however they were not ranked highly enough in comparison to other projects to receive funding.

(6) Minor capital upgrading funding rounds are currently conducted once a year. The timing of a fu-ture round has not been determined at this stage.

(7) Centres which apply for funding in one round are not restricted from applying in later rounds.(8) There are no plans to alter the eligibility guidelines.(9) There is no process for providing priority to previously unsuccessful applicants. Each funding

round involves a competitive assessment of applications received in that round, with priority givento those determined to have demonstrated that they have projects in need of urgent attention be-cause of health, safety and licensing issues.

Regional Flood Mitigation Program: Eligibility(Question No. 2648)

Mrs Crosio asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on6 June 2001:(1) Is the Government to extend the eligibility criteria for the Regional Flood Mitigation Program to

include outer metropolitan areas.(2) Does the Minister’s Department consider the local government areas of (a) Parramatta, (b) Hol-

royd, (c) Fairfield and (d) Penrith outer metropolitan areas.(3) Was $40m of Commonwealth funds announced in the 2001-2002 Budget for the extension of the

eligibility criteria of the Regional Flood Mitigation Program; if not, what sum has been appropri-ated.

(4) What sum of new Commonwealth money has been allocated to NSW under the extension of theProgram.

(5) Will the Commonwealth funds announced in the 2001-2002 Budget be matched by the respectiveState and local governments under the 2:2:1 ratio; if not, what ratio will the Commonwealth, Stateand local governments contribute to the Program.

(6) Will funding from the Program be used for works in the western Sydney suburbs of Toongabbieand Wentworthville.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) As announced in the Federal Budget of 22 May the Regional Flood Mitigation Program has been

extended providing $40 million over the next four years and includes as a new measure outer met-ropolitan areas.


(2) The definition of ‘an outer metropolitan area’ has not yet been established. A number of optionsare being considered to gauge suitability for defining these areas.

(3) No, the $40 million announced is for the expansion of the whole of the Flood Mitigation Program.(4) Notional Allocations between State and Territories have not yet been determined as the calculation

will be based on previous Regional Flood Mitigation Program uptake amounts and the list of pri-orities put forward by the States and Territories for 2001/2002. A determination will be madeshortly.

(5) The funding arrangements under the new Program are the same as the former Regional FloodMitigation Program, that is the Federal Government will fund no more than one third of the ap-proved project cost. The remaining two thirds of the project costs are to be funded by the State andLocal Governments. The Federal Government has made no stipulation as to how the States andTerritories and Local Governments divide the funding of their two thirds of the project, beyondrequiring that the State at least match the Federal Government funding. This provides scope forState and Territory Governments to increase their contribution.

(6) The new Program extends eligibility to outer metropolitan areas. In accordance with the Programguidelines, applications are assessed and prioritised by State and Territory Governments whichthen make recommendations to the Federal Government.

Defence: HMAS Brisbane(Question No. 2651)

Ms O’Byrne asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:(1) When does he expect the decommissioning of HMAS Brisbane to take place.(2) Is there an established process for the gifting of decommissioned navy vessels; if so, what is that

process.(3) Are there any plans to gift HMAS Brisbane to any State or organisation.(4) Can he provide a detailed plan for the decommissioning and disposal of HMAS Brisbane.

Mr Reith—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) It is proposed that the decommissioning of HMAS Brisbane will occur on 19 October 2001. At

this stage, the decommissioning ceremony is expected to take place at Fleet Base East, Woolloo-mooloo.

(2) Yes. From a Commonwealth perspective, it is desirable that any business plan or communitysubmission should be negotiated at State Government level, rather than directly between theCommonwealth and the local community or organisation. In this regard, the Western AustralianState Government has established a benchmark for dealing with ships of this size and nature,whereby the State protects the interests of the local community or group involved, and accepts allcontiguous liabilities.

(3) The Western Australian, Queensland and New South Wales Governments have expressed an inter-est in acquiring HMAS Brisbane, as has the Launceston Chamber of Commerce and various otherassociations and groups. The Australian War Memorial has also expressed keen interest in secur-ing selected items of equipment and superstructure for public exhibit at the memorial. Gifting thevessel is one option that is currently under consideration.

(4) No. Until the Disposal Plan is completed, I am unable to provide these details. However, it isexpected that the Disposal Plan will be completed by August 2001.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal: Veterans(Question No. 2652)

Mr McClelland asked the Attorney General, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:(1) What is the average length of time that applicants in veterans’ affairs’ matters are required to wait

for reserved judgments of appeals from the Veterans Review Board to the Administrative AppealsTribunal.

(2) What steps is he taking to address these delays.

Mr Williams—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:


(1) From 1 June 2000 to 31 May 2001 there were 136 Veterans Division Applications heard and deci-sions reserved by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The average time from a decision beingreserved until its delivery was 68.8 days. The Tribunal’s time standard is 60 days.

(2) Factors beyond the control of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affected the timeliness of de-livery of some reserved decisions in veterans’ matters over the relevant period. Applicationsheard and reserved by the Tribunal affected by the proceedings in Repatriation Commission vKeeley [2000] FCA 532 were delayed pending final determination of those proceedings. An ap-plication for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the Full Court of the Federal Court’sdecision in Keeley was refused on 28 November 2000.There have been a number of further appeals to the Federal Court in veterans’ matters raising theissue of accrued rights and which Statement of Principles should be applied by the AdministrativeAppeals Tribunal. Those appeals have attempted to distinguish the Keeley decision and havecaused a delay in determination of matters before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal expected tobe affected by those appeals.On 1 June this year I announced the appointment of 53 members to the Administrative AppealsTribunal, comprising 15 new members and 38 reappointed members. Most appointments took ef-fect on 1 July this year for terms of between 1 and 3 years. I am confident that the quality of themembers appointed will ensure that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will continue to operateeffectively, including in the Veterans’ Division, pending the establishment of the AdministrativeReview Tribunal.

Social Security: Bilateral Agreements(Question No. 2655)

Dr Theophanous asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 6 June2001:(1) Is he aware that there have been long delays in the signing of social security agreements between

Australia and (a) Croatia, (b) Turkey and (c) Greece.(2) What progress has been made in finalising these agreements and what are the remaining obstacles.(3) When is it expected that these agreements will be finalised.

Mr Anthony—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) I am aware that we do not have social security agreements with Croatia, Turkey or Greece. I am

also aware that delays in finalising bilateral agreements are common. For example, negotiationsfor the agreement signed with Germany last December were begun in 1985.

(2) In relation to Croatia, progress has been delayed due to other priorities. Amendments to the textnegotiated in December 1998 are now required because of recent changes to Australian social se-curity law, and taxation and welfare reform. It is hoped that the Department will be in a positionto give this further consideration next year.An agreement with Turkey is not under active consideration. Negotiations planned in 1995 werepostponed by Turkey and a request to resume discussions was only received last year. Turkey hasbeen advised that the Department will review its readiness to resume discussions next year.In the case of Greece, the honourable member will be aware that successive Governments of bothpolitical persuasions have made a number of proposals to Greece and none have been accepted.The Government’s latest offer of an agreement was also rejected. The previous Minister for Fam-ily and Community Services, the Hon. Senator Newman, wrote to Greece in February last yearsuggesting that officials meet to ensure that Australia’s generous offer and the Greek Govern-ment’s reservations about that offer were clearly understood. There has been no response fromGreece.

(3) I am not able to advise the honourable member when an agreement will be finalised with each ofthese countries.

Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Environment Strategy(Question No. 2666)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on7 June 2001:


(1) Does the November 1999 Sydney Airport Environment Strategy state that Sydney Airport ac-knowledges the need to further address aircraft impacts external to the airport and that this taskwill be undertaken during the preparation of Sydney Airport Master Plan.

(2) Will the Sydney Airport Master Plan contain the Government’s strategy for mitigating againstairport impacts at ultimate operational capacity and are noise, airport-associated road traffic con-gestion, air toxic emissions and health risks are covered in the plan.

(3) Is critical information being withheld from the public; if so, what is that information.(4) Will he immediately table a copy of the Sydney Airport Master Plan in the House.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) The Sydney Airport Environment Strategy recognises that noise generated by aircraft in flight,

when landing, taking-off or taxiing at an airport are important environmental issues. The Strategyindicates that noise generated by aircraft will be considered as part of the Master Plan.

(2) No. The Master Plan is the airport-lessee company’s strategic plan for the airport.(3) No.(4) No. There is at present no Master Plan for Sydney Airport, due to the prospective sale of the Air-

port. However, the company will be required to provide a draft master plan by 31 January 2003.The extended deadline also has regard to the anticipated complexity of a master planning processfor Sydney Airport given the range of competing industry and community interests that will needto be balanced.

Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Toxic Emissions(Question No. 2668)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7June 2001:(1) Further to his response to question No. 2308 (Hansard, 23 May 2001, page 25927), in light of his

reply that there is no information on toxic emissions from road traffic associated with Sydney Air-port, (a) can he confirm the validity or otherwise of Sydney Airport Corporation Limiteds (SACL)assertion that there is no significant health risk associated with emissions from Sydney Airportstotal-airport operations; (b) upon what basis does the SACL reach this conclusion and (c) will hetable copies of this probative evidence in the House.

(2) Are the bulk of Sydneys most densely populated areas located within a 10km radius of SydneyAirport and the central Sydney industrial area of Port Botany, both of which generate a dispropor-tionate road traffic load and other toxic transport emissions compared to the rest of the Sydneymetropolitan area.

(3) Do Sydney Airport emissions contribute approximately 40% of the total toxic air emissions loadin the 20 square kilometres surrounding Sydney Airport.

(4) Which inner city suburbs are downwind of Sydney Airport and Port Botany during typical 24-hour patterns of trapped Sydney basin air re-circulation.

(5) Has air pollution generated in the eastern part of the Sydney basin been reported to be transportedon a regular basis by afternoon sea breezes as far as the south west part of the basin.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) It has not been possible to find record of the assertion that is ascribed to Sydney Airports Corpo-

ration Limited in the Honourable Member’s question.(2) (4) and (5) The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) continuously monitors air quality

throughout the Sydney basin. The Honourable Member may wish to examine the EPA’s webpageat http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au to gain up to date information on the levels of air pollutantsthroughout the basin.

(3) A 20 square kilometre area centred on the Airport covers parts of Botany Bay and small parts ofthe surrounding suburbs. A very substantial part of the area is covered by the Airport. Given this,it is not unlikely that a significant proportion of the air emissions in that area are associated withSydney Airport.

Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and Bankstown Airport: Toxic Emissions(Question No. 2669)

Mr Murphy To ask the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7June 2001:


(1) Further to his response to question No. 2310 (Hansard, 23 May 2001, page 25927), (a) is he ableto say whether benzene and 1,3 butadiene are carcinogens and (b) do mobile sources account forthe majority of total benzene and 1,3 butadiene pollution in Sydney.

(2) Further to his response to part (2) of question No. 2310, did Sydney Airports Corporation Limitedclaim that the NSW Environment Protection Agencys toxic emissions data supported its claim ofno significant health risk given in evidence to the Commission of Inquiry into the Precision Run-way Monitor System for Sydney Airport.

(3) Further to his response to part (6) of question No. 2310, must these significant airport capacityexpansions trigger an environmental impact statement or other environmental assessment underCommonwealth law.

(4) Is he able to say whether another area of higher-than-state-average incidence of lung cancer occursother than in the south west Sydney basin area; if so, where.

(5) Is he also able to say whether smokers who are also exposed long-term to toxic transport emis-sions are likely to be more at risk of contracting lung disease than smokers living in clean air envi-ronments.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Second Sydney Airport Proposal indi-

cates that benzene is released to the air from evaporative emissions from petrol and from incom-plete combustion of motor vehicle and aircraft fuel. It is classified as a known human carcinogen.1,3 butadiene is found in aircraft and motor vehicle exhausts. The EIS states that there is insuffi-cient evidence to confirm that it is a human carcinogen.

(2) It has not been possible to find any reference to the NSW Environment Protection Agency’s toxicemissions data in the published transcript of the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited’s evidence tothe Commission of Inquiry into the Precision Runway Monitor System for Sydney Airport.

(3) Any proposal for upgrading the facilities and operational aspects of Bankstown Airport will needto be considered against the requirements of the Airports Act 1996 and the Environment Protec-tion and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. I will be recommending to the Environment Min-ister that the private sector lessee should be required to do a full environmental impact statement(EIS) into the upgrading of Bankstown Airport.

(4) and (5) The Honourable Member may wish to approach the NSW Department of Health to ascer-tain detailed epidemiological data for the Sydney region.


Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heri-tage, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Is the Minister able to confirm Environment Australia’s reported assertion that it is Government

policy to comply with Australian Standard for Aircraft Noise AS2021.(2) Did the Third Runway environmental impact statement (EIS) assess the environmental impact (a)

of removing small planes from Sydney Airport and (b) around Sydney Airport of the introductionof one or more reliever airports for Sydney Airport.

(3) Did the Badgerys Creek EIS assess the environmental impact for Sydney Airport.(4) Has the Government assessed the environmental impact of expanding Bankstown Airport as an

overflow airport for communities impacted by Sydney Airport and Bankstown Airport.(5) Has the Government holistically assessed the total impact of all Sydney’s airports on the Sydney

metropolitan area and is there a basin-wide environmental assessment of airport impacts.

Mr Truss—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following an-swer to the honourable member’s question:(1) No. The Minister is not aware of any such assertion by Environment Australia.(2) No. The Proposed Third Runway EIS primarily assessed the proposal to construct a third runway

at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.


(3) No. The Second Sydney Airport EIS assessed the impacts of locating a second domes-tic/international airport for Sydney at Badgerys Creek.

(4) No. Any proposal for upgrading the facilities and operational aspects of Bankstown Airport willneed to be considered against the requirements of the Environment Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act 1999 to ascertain whether formal environmental assessment of such a proposalis required.

(5) No.

Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Pollutants(Question No. 2673)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heri-tage, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Is the Minister able to enumerate the percentage change in Sydney Airport’s road traffic as a pro-

portion of all traffic on the major roads around Sydney airport since the Third Runway EIS wascompleted; if so, what is that percentage.

(2) Is the Minister able to say (a) which air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs),have been associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, neurological ef-fects, and reproductive and developmental effects, (b) whether HAPs include such chemicals asbenzene, formaldehyde, tetrachloroethylene, and cadmium, and (c) whether HAPs are emittedfrom cars, trucks, buses and aircraft.

(3) During the past five years, has the practice of risk assessment within Environment Australiaevolved away from a focus on the potential of a single pollutant in one environmental medium forcausing cancer toward integrated assessments involving suites of pollutants in several media thatmay cause a variety of adverse effects on humans, plants, animals or effects on ecological systemsand their processes and functions.

(4) Is the Minister able to say whether the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) CumulativeExposure Project has observed associations between increased risk of lung cancer and toxic trans-port emissions from mobile sources, including road traffic and airports.

Mr Truss—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following an-swer to the honourable member’s question:(1) No. Road traffic issues around Sydney are a matter for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.(2) (a) The Commonwealth’s Living Cities - Air Toxics Program defines air toxics as:

gaseous, aerosol or particulate pollutants (other than the six criteria pollutants) which are presentin the air in low concentrations with characteristics such as toxicity and persistence so as to be ahazard to human, plant or animal life. The terms ‘air toxics’ and ‘hazardous air pollutants’ (HAPs)are used interchangeably.Consistent with this definition exposure to any air toxic has the potential to cause adverse healtheffects.(b) Yes, all the substances listed are considered air toxics.(c) Yes, a range of air toxics is emitted from cars, trucks, buses and aircraft. These mobile sources

have all been associated with emissions of air toxics including benzene, 1,3-butadiene andformaldehyde.

(3) The application of risk assessment is considered on a case by case basis. The consideration of allrelevant media does occur in assessing the risk of a pollutant to humans and biota. Chemicalmixtures are typically not assessed together unless they are closely chemically related groups ofcompounds, for example dioxins or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

(4) I am not aware of the findings of the US EPA’s Cumulative Exposure Project. However, the asso-ciation between toxic transport emissions and an increased risk of cancer is well established.

Second Sydney Airport: Health Risks(Question No. 2674)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heri-tage, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:


(1) At any time before, during or after the assessment of the proposed Badgerys Creek airport, didEnvironment Australia note that the Minneapolis St Paul airport system provided the closest air-port analogy.

(2) What are Environment Australia’s benchmarks for safe concentrations of toxins in air for benzene,toluene, 1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde and acrolein and how does this compare with actual air lev-els, if such data exists.

(3) Is the Minister able to say whether, following the Commission of Inquiry into the Precision Run-way Monitor System, the US EPA Cumulative Exposure project for the Minneapolis St Paul met-ropolitan area shows that, for the toxins considered, lifetime cancer risk per 100 000 persons inand downwind of the primary airport and two of its reliever airports ranges from 13 to nearly 40times the health risk level set by the Minnesota Department of Health, or one additional case ofcancer per 100 000 people.

(4) Is the Minister able to say whether the US EPA Cumulative Exposure Project study of the Seattlemetropolitan area shows that the lifetime cancer risk per 100 000 persons exposed to toxic emis-sions in and around SeaTac airport range from 200 to 400 times EPA’s recommended safe level ofcarcinogens in the air.

(5) Is the Minister able to say whether the August 2000 study by the City of Park Ridge Illinois titled“Preliminary Study and Analysis of Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions from O’Hare International Air-port and the Resulting Health Risks created by these air toxic emissions in surrounding residentialcommunities” found that toxic emissions exceeding a cancer risk of 1 in 100 000, assuming 70years of exposure, encompass an area of approximately 1000 square miles around Chicago’sO’Hare airport.

Mr Truss—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following an-swer to the honourable member’s question:(1) No.(2) There are currently no national ambient air standards for these pollutants in Australia. However,

the Commonwealth’s Living Cities – Air Toxics Program has been actively promoting the case fordeveloping a National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) for Ambient Air Toxics. At itsmeeting on 29 June 2001, the National Environment Protection Council decided to commence de-velopment of the Ambient Air Toxics NEPM. This NEPM will set Australian ambient air stan-dards for priority air toxics.

(3) No, the Minister is not aware of the detailed findings of this study.(4) No, the Minister is not aware of the detailed findings of this study.(5) No, the Minister is not aware of the detailed findings of this study.

Australia Post: Yellow Express Post Boxes(Question No. 2677)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Informa-tion Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) What information is provided to the public by Australia Post on the location of its Yellow Express

Post Boxes and where can this information be obtained.(2) How many Yellow Express Post Boxes are located within the electoral division of Lowe and

where are these locations.(3) Are Yellow Express Post Boxes located in every federal electorate.(4) If a person posts a letter in (a) Sydney or (b) regional or rural Australia in a Yellow Express Post

Box before 6 p.m. on a Sunday and that letter is addressed to an address within Australia, will itbe delivered to the addressee the following day; if not, why not.

(5) If a person posts a letter in an ordinary Red Post Box in Sydney before 6 p.m. on a Sunday, will itbe delivered to another address in Sydney the following day; if not, why not.

Mr McGauran—The answer to the honourable member’s question based on advice re-ceived from Australia Post is as follows:


(1) Customers can obtain information about the locations of Express Post gold street posting boxes bycalling Australia Post’s Customer Call Centre (telephone 131318 all States), or by accessing itswebsite at www.auspost.com.au and clicking on the Post Office Locater Map.Customers in New South Wales and Victoria can also obtain brochures from local postal outletsthat list the locations of gold street posting boxes in their State.

(2) There are four Express Post gold boxes in the electorate of Lowe. They are located at:• corner Drummoyne and Rosebury Streets, Drummoyne 2047;• corner Burwood Road and Comer Street, Burwood North 2134;• Railway Parade (at Burwood Station), Burwood 2134; and• Shop 45-47 The Boulevarde, Strathfield 2135.

(3) No. Express Post gold posting boxes are provided at locations within the defined next-business-day delivery network, the details of which are printed on the back of all Express Post domesticproducts.

(4) No. Express Post is a business-day to business-day product with dedicated processing arrange-ments in place Monday to Friday to meet the advertised delivery standard.An Express Post letter posted in a gold street posting box on a Sunday would not normally be de-livered the following day because the special processing arrangements for Express Post items arenot geared for weekend postings.The following instruction appears on the back of all Express Post domestic products – “next busi-ness day delivery is guaranteed over the following specified routes, if your envelope/satchel isposted correctly on any business day Monday to Friday”.There is also a notice on all gold street posting boxes explaining the scope of the service (ie thatthe next-business-day delivery guarantee applies to items posted before the clearance time shownon the box, Monday to Friday).An ordinary letter incorrectly posted in a gold street posting box on a Sunday would also be sub-ject to delay as it would have to be extracted and directed to a separate processing stream.

(5) Yes. An ordinary letter posted in a red street posting box in Sydney by 6pm on a Sunday shouldbe delivered to another address in Sydney the following day.An Express Post letter incorrectly posted in a red street posting box on a Sunday would probablynot be delivered the following day – it would be subject to delay due to its being automatically di-verted to the Express Post processing stream which is not geared for weekend postings.The following instruction appears on the back of all Express Post domestic products – “Do notpost in red street posting boxes”.

Roads: Western Sydney Orbital(Question No. 2684)

Mr Price asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June2001:(1) When was the agreement signed between the NSW Government and the Federal Government for

the construction of the Western Sydney Orbital Road.(2) Did the agreement cover any other roads; if so, (a) which roads, (b) what is the estimated project

costs and (c) what is the contribution of each government to the roads.Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

(1) The agreement to which you refer, known as the “Memorandum of Understanding between theCommonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales concerning the Western Sydney Or-bital”, was signed on 4 January 2001.

(2) (a) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covers the Western Sydney Orbital and associatedworks required for its construction and ongoing operation and maintenance for the duration of thetoll concession period. The MOU also states that both Governments agree to carry out a study toidentify a route for the National Highway from a point on the WSO to the F3.(b) The cost of the study will be $1.8 million.(c) The study will be fully funded by the Commonwealth.

Australian Defence Force: 3RAR(Question No. 2687)

Mr Price asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June2001:


Has a senior officer from 3 RAR been charged; if so, (a) when was he charged, (b) what was the chargeand (c) when is a trial expected.

Mr Bruce Scott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:A former Commanding Officer of 3 RAR has been charged.

(a) Charges were preferred on 26 March 2001.(b) The officer was charged with contempt of a service tribunal and an alternative charge of preju-

dicial behaviour.(c) A Defence Force Magistrate’s trial commenced on 4 July 2001 and concluded on 6 July 2001.

Australian Defence Force: 3RAR(Question No. 2688)

Mr Price asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June2001:Has the investigation into any Command responsibility associated with the 3RAR affair commenced; ifso, when (a) did it commence and (b) is it expected to be completed; if not, when (a) will it commenceand (b) will it be completed.

Mr Bruce Scott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:The degree to which the chain of command was aware of matters has been and remains subject to in-vestigation. Action will be taken where evidence supports it. The degree of command responsibilityfor the incidents as a whole will be determined through an inquiry into the 3RAR command climate.

(a) The inquiry will not commence prior to Mr Burchett presenting the findings of the MilitaryJustice Audit.

(b) It is anticipated the inquiry into the 3RAR command climate will be completed within 4months of commencement.

Telstra: Public Telephones, Fairfield(Question No. 2691)

Mrs Crosio asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, InformationTechnology and the Arts, upon notice, on 18 June 2001:How many Telstra public telephones were located in the local government area of Fairfield (a) in 1996and (b) on 1 June 2001.

Mr McGauran—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Artshas provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:Telstra advises that it had 175 public payphones in the local government area of Fairfield on 1 June2001. Whilst the actual number of public payphones in Fairfield in 1996 is not available, Telstra con-siders that there would have been a slight decrease in payphone numbers for reasons such as the re-moval of a payphone from sites where there were previously two units. This removal was made neces-sary by either the decrease in use of the units, or the removal of older generation magnetic stripe card-only phones when that technology ceased to exist.As stated in its Universal Service Marketing Plan, Telstra must consult with the community prior toremoving a payphone, unless it is one of multiple phones in a location. To do this Telstra must place anotice in the payphone for 3 months informing users that Telstra is considering removing the payphoneand inviting comment from the community on the removal or the need to keep the payphone in its cur-rent location. Telstra will then make its decision on the future of the payphone taking into account thiscommunity consultation.

Veterans: Prisoners of War(Question No. 2692)

Mrs Crosio asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 18 June 2001:(1) How many former prisoners of war and widows of former prisoners of war reside in the electoral

division of Prospect.


(2) How many of those prisoners of war and widows of former prisoners of war will be entitled toreceive the $25 000 compensation announced in the 2001 Budget.

Mr Bruce Scott—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) There are nine former prisoners of war and an estimated eight widows of former prisoners of war

residing in the electorate of Prospect.(2) Of those, six former prisoners of war and five known widows of former prisoners of war are enti-

tled to receive the $25,000 payment.

Recording Industry: Code of Practice(Question No. 2694)

Mr Murphy asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 June 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in Light magazine of May 2001 titled “When Love Is

Not Enough”, in which it is alleged that certain rock music bands encourage acts of violence, drugusage, sex, rape, murder and suicide.

(2) Has the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) classified the music of any artist citedin the article; if so, what are those classifications.

(3) Are the comments made in the article at page 3 consistent with the OFLC’s findings in respect ofits review of those artists.

(4) In light of the article, will he recommend the reclassification of those artists whose music is con-sistent with the comments made, as “Refused Classification”; if not, why not.

Mr Williams—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The Classification Board (the Board) is responsible for classifying publications, films and com-

puter games in accordance with the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act1995 (the Classification Act). Under the Classification Act music lyrics in printed form may beclassified as a publication and an audio-visual recording of music, such as a music video clip, maybe classified as a film. However, the Board does not have power to classify an audio recordingunless the recording can be considered to be a film for the purpose of the Classification Act.Audio recordings are regulated under the Record Industry Code of Practice for Labelling Productwith Explicit and Potentially Offensive Lyrics (the Audio Code). The Audio Code came into ef-fect in 1996 with the approval of all Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers andis administered by the Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA). Censorship Ministersmonitor the operation and effectiveness of the Audio Code, and the level of complaint about of-fensive audio recordings.The article in question lists a number of artists and includes comments about the alleged contentof their music. However, the article does not provide information about the specific titles of therecordings being referred to. On the information provided in the article it appears that the record-ings are likely to be audio recordings, which are regulated under the Audio Code administered byARIA, rather than audio-visual recordings which may require classification.The Board has classified 44 audio-visual videotape and CD-ROM recordings of 13 of the 23 art-ists listed in the article. These recordings include music video clips and films of live perform-ances or tours. The audio-visual recordings were classified by the Board during the period 1988to 2001 and span the classification categories from ‘G’ to ‘R’ as follows:

CLASSIFICATION NUMBERG 6PG 9M 22MA 5R 2X 0RC 0


(3) It is not possible to identify whether or not the audio-visual recordings classified by the Boardhave a similar content to the recordings referred to in the article. Nor is it possible to correlate thecomments made in the article with the reasons for the classification decisions made by the Boardwith any accuracy. It appears likely that the audio recordings referred to in the article may have adifferent content than the audio-visual recordings classified by the Board. The reasons cited bythe Board for the classification decisions are summarised in the following table:

REASON NUMBERCoarse Language 28Adult Concepts/Themes 10Sexual References 5Drug Use 5Nudity 3

(4) The Board does not classify the body of work of an artist, but classifies specific works, beingpublications, films and computer games, that are submitted to it for the purpose of classification.The article does not provide information about specific recordings or works. There is insufficientinformation or evidence to suggest that reclassification of the audio-visual recordings classified bythe Board is warranted.

Adelaide Airport: Australian Noise Exposure Index(Question No. 2696)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon no-tice, on 18 June 2001:(1) What is the process for reviewing the Australian Noise Exposure Index (ANEI) for Adelaide Air-

port and (a) at what stage of this process is the current review and (b) when is it likely to conclude.(2) What individuals or organisations are entitled to make recommendations or changing the current

ratings and which organisation is responsible for submitting the final recommendations.(3) Who makes the final decision on those recommendations and what additional factors, if any are

able to be considered.(4) When will the findings of the review be made public.(5) Aside from the current ANEI review is there currently any other review being conducted associ-

ated with noise measurement, monitoring or mitigation in relation to Adelaide airport or any otherairport: if so, what are the details.Type in text of question here reproduced exactly as it appears onNotice Paper.An electronic version of the Notice Paper can be found athttp://search.aph.gov.au/search/ParlInfo.ASP?action=browse&Path=Chamber&Start=2&cfc#top

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1-4) Australian Noise Exposure Index maps are contour maps based on historical data which show the

average aircraft noise exposure around airports over a given period. They are prepared in accor-dance with guidelines issued by Airservices Australia. My Department has commissioned con-sultants to prepare an Australian Noise Exposure Index covering Adelaide Airport’s operations forthe year 2000. The guidelines provide for Airservices Australia to assess the technical accuracy ofANEIs, and this assessment is currently being undertaken. It is intended that the ANEI will beprovided to the Adelaide Airport Environment Committee and other interested parties after it hasbeen finalised. My decision on eligibility for insulation under the Airport Noise Insulation Pro-gram will be based on the noise exposure contours shown in the ANEI.

(5) Most major airports in Australia are involved in activities associated with aircraft noise measure-ment, monitoring or mitigation.

Defence: Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory(Question No. 2697)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 June 2001:


(1) With respect to the operation of his Department’s Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory(AMLR), did the Combatant Protection and Nutrition Board (CPN) breach Government policy byconducting a collaborative project with the CSIRO or any other organisation during 1996-97 onbacteria by reproducing micro-organisms.

(2) Was Government policy to allow biological defence work using reproducing micro-organisms notin place until August 1998.

(3) Is the AMLR building a class 3 biological containment facility at Fisherman’s Bend, Melbourne,in which the CPN Board will work on infectious agents for diseases such as plague and anthrax; ifso, will the same managers who may have breached Government policy in conducting research onbacteria referred to in part (1) have control over this facility.

(4) Was the AMLR CPN Branch involved in the biological detection aspects of the Sydney Olympics,including participation in the design of a facility for this purpose by Drs Peter Gray and RalphLeslie.

(5) Did the UK provide the technology for this Olympic detection program and due to design faults,did the facility fail to meet UK Occupational Health and Safety Standards for biological contain-ment, resulting in UK experts being unable to alter the facility when it was in use.

Mr Reith—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) No. DSTO did not conduct a collaborative project with CSIRO or any other organisation in

1996/97 on reproducing micro-organisms:a. Up until 1994, DSTO had maintained only a watching brief in the field of biological defence re-search. In 1994, the Government authorised DSTO to commence a modest program of researchinto defence against biological weapons using toxins. Toxins are derived from living material butare not reproducing micro-organisms. No authority was granted for work using reproducing mi-cro-organisms. After commencing this program, DSTO did not, at any time prior to August 1998,undertake work using reproducing micro-organisms in its research into defence against biologicalweapons.b. From its inception, DSTO’s work on biological defence has been overseen by the BiologicalDefence Advisory Committee (BDAC). This Committee is composed of representatives from theDepartments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Attorney General, and anacademic proficient in molecular biology. All proposals and research results for work on biologi-cal defence research were presented to BDAC. The members of the BDAC found DSTO’s workprogram to comply fully with Government policy.c. In 1996, DSTO, as part of its arms control related work, purchased reference chemicals includ-ing phospholipids and fatty acids from CSIRO. These materials, derived from extracts of killedbacteria, were delivered to AMRL as inert organic chemicals.

(2) Yes. Prior to 1998, Government policy proscribed the use of reproducing micro-organisms. InAugust 1998, Government policy was extended to allow work on reproducing micro-organisms upto Risk Level 3. This policy change was made because DSTO was not well placed to advise theDefence Organisation on defence against biological weapons or assist the Department of ForeignAffairs and Trade in its work to limit and eliminate biological weapons. In addition, DSTO couldneither obtain the benefits arising from the exchange of scientific data with our Allies in this areanor develop technologies to protect members of the ADF against the use of biological weapons.

(3) DSTO is planning to build a Level 3 containment laboratory at Fishermans Bend as part of themove of the Maribyrnong-based activities to Fishermans Bend under the Melbourne Facilities Ra-tionalisation Program. Facilities designed to this level protect staff against the danger of exposureto micro-organisms such as plague and anthrax. This laboratory will be similar to several labora-tories in Melbourne’s bioscience research community and teaching hospitals and will be con-structed and operated in compliance with the relevant Standards and Codes-of-Practice governinglaboratories of this level. The laboratory will be operated and managed by appropriately trainedand experienced staff. The laboratory will allow DSTO to conduct research on developing tech-nologies for the rapid detection of and protection against micro-organisms that could be used inbiological weapons against members of the Australian Defence Force. There is no evidence thatany staff in CPNB, whether they are expected to be managers of the containment laboratory ornot, have ever breached Government policy.


(4) Yes. CPNB contributed to the biological defence/detection aspects of the security arrangementsfor the Sydney 2000 Olympics. DSTO’s contribution was highly valued and DSTO has been con-gratulated on its efforts in this regard. All the staff involved were volunteers and displayed thelevels of scientific excellence and professionalism that have come to typify Australian DefenceScience. Drs Gray and Leslie were responsible for the design of the physical facility used for thispurpose. This facility met all relevant Australian standards and OH&S requirements. The primeconsideration in the design and operation of the facility was that it would provide a safe workplace. DSTO obtained the advice of independent biological safety experts during the design of thefacility. Safety guidelines for the facility were developed and reviewed by an independent con-sultant for microbiological safety. Specifically:a. the scope of the work to be performed in the facility and concept of operation were discussedwith CSIRO Division of Animal Health and also with an independent consultant prior to design-ing the facility;b. the facility complied with AS/ NZ Standard 2243.3 Part 3, Safety in Laboratories; andc. the Biological Safety Cabinets used in the facility are certified as compliant with AS/NZ Stan-dard 2647, Biological Safety Cabinets - Installation and Use.

(5) This question refers to classified material.

Visas: Electronic Travel Authorities(Question No. 2702)

Mr Sciacca asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on19 June 2001:(1) How many visitors to Australia in (a) 1999-2000 and (b) 2000-2001 arrived on Electronic Travel

Authorities (ETAs).(2) Is a charge applied for tourists who obtain an ETA to travel to Australia using the services of

travel agents, airlines or offshore consulates.(3) Is a charge applied to travel agents or airlines who provide this service for customers.(4) When was the decision made to provide potential visitors with an internet service for obtaining

ETAs, as announced by him on 28 May.(5) Was the revenue raised by the $20 service charge applicable to travellers who choose to obtain an

ETA via the internet included in budget calculations for 2001-2002.(6) Given that around 4 million tourists a year currently travel to Australia on ETAs, what is the esti-

mated revenue from this charge for 2001-2002.(7) Is the program being administered by his Department or have the services been contracted out; if

so, (a) when were tenders called for the contract, (b) when was the contract awarded and (c) whatis the value of the contract.

Mr Ruddock—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) (a) In 1999/2000 2.719 million Electronic Travel Authorities (ETAs) were issued to intending

travellers to Australia.(b) From 1 July 2000 to 31 May 2001 2.748 million ETAs were issued to intending travellers to

Australia.There is no Australian Government charge for the Visitor ETA (subclass 976) or the BusinessShort Validity ETA (subclass 977). There is an Australian Government charge of $60 for theBusiness Long Validity ETA (subclass 956).The majority of travel agents and airlines impose a processing fee on their clients seeking an ETA.The amount varies considerably from region to region and within regions. For example, travelagents in the London region charge between $36 and $100 Australian dollars per ETA. This is inaddition to the $60 Australian Government charge for the Business Long Validity ETA.

(3) No.(4) 6 May 2001.(5) No. The $20 service charge is collected by CPS Systems Pty Ltd, the contractor that administers

the ETA system on behalf of the Commonwealth. The level of the fee, which has been set by the


Commonwealth for the duration of the trial, announced 28 May 2001, has been calculated to offsetthe cost to CPS Systems of the trial.

(6) See (5) above.(7) The ETA system is operated and maintained by CPS Systems Pty Ltd under contract to the Com-

monwealth. The trial Internet access to the ETA system is being administered by CPS Systemsunder this contract.(a) Tenders for the ETA system contract were called in 1995.(b) CPS Systems Pty Ltd was awarded the ETA system contract in September 1996.(c) The value of the contract is commercial-in-confidence.

Immigration: Migrant Resource Centres(Question No. 2705)

Mr Kerr asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 19June 2001:Has his attention been drawn to allegations of administrative failure within the operations of the Mi-grant Resource Centre (Southern Tasmania) Inc and the Migrant Resource Centre Tasmania Limited; ifso, what are the specific details of the matters that have been alleged to him and what steps has he takenby way of a response to those concerns.

Mr Ruddock—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:My Department has drawn my attention to allegations in relation to the operations of the Migrant Re-source Centre (MRC) (Southern Tasmania) Inc.Former employees of MRC (Southern Tasmania) also drew a number of concerns to my attention.A number of steps have been taken to deal with the allegations in relation to the Centre. In May thisyear, I asked my Department to engage MRC (Southern Tasmania) in informal dispute resolution proc-esses as provided for in the Service Agreement and, at the same time, to consider the option of ceasingfunding to the Centre if this was warranted.My Department has been engaged in ongoing discussion with the MRC Management Committee forsome months. That dialogue will continue and the MRC’s performance under the Service Agreementwill continue to be monitored closely.I have also been informed of concerns raised by the auditor for MRC (Southern Tasmania). These con-cerns are being actively pursued by my Department. MRC (Southern Tasmania) is due to provide theDepartment with an audited financial statement at the end of July 2001. In May 2001, my Departmentprovided the MRC with a list of issues the audit is to cover, in order to assess the validity of the allega-tions.My Department will continue to monitor the performance of the MRC (Southern Tasmania) to ensurethat we can confidently continue funding the organisation.The second organisation, Migrant Resource Centre Tasmania Limited, is a newly created entity deliv-ering services contracted by my Department. The allegations relating to this organisation concern per-sonnel practices, and more minor concerns related to financial management practices. My Departmentis providing support to MRC Tasmania Limited to build its capacity to manage and be accountable forpublic funding.

Immigration: Migrant Resource Centres(Question No. 2706)

Mr Kerr asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 19June 2001:(1) Has the Migrant Resource Centre (Southern Tasmania) Inc made a number of staff changes re-

cently.(2) Has the centre replaced highly qualified staff in the area of refugee settlement with staff who have

no appropriate qualifications to undertake that task.(3) Was a recent staff member appointed to administer the PICC program with no appropriate back-

ground.


(4) Have a number of staff either been dismissed or forced to leave the employment of the centre incircumstances which have given rise to claims for unfair dismissal.

(5) Is his Department committed to ensuring that the Migrant Resource Centre meets minimum stan-dards of employment as prescribed by the agreements that are entered into between his Depart-ment and the centre.

(6) What is the reason for the centre declining to implement the determination made on 1 June 2001by Commissioner Abbey for the reinstatement of Ms Maureen Adamson.

Mr Ruddock—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) The Migrant Resource Centre (MRC) (Southern Tasmania) has made a number of staff changes in

the past seven months. The MRC:• terminated employment of a Community Settlement Services Scheme (CSSS) worker whose

project funding ceased in late 2000;• dismissed an administrative officer in February 2001, who has since been reinstated;• employed a number of temporary staff to cover staff shortages; and• an administration officer resigned in June 2001.

(2) MRC (Southern Tasmania) has not replaced highly qualified staff in the area of refugee settlementwith staff who have no appropriate qualifications to undertake that task.

(3) The PICC program is not funded by my Department. I am, therefore, unable to provide a responseto this question.

(4) There have been two instances in the past seven months in which claims of unfair dismissalagainst MRC (Southern Tasmania) have been heard by the Tasmanian Industrial Relations Com-mission. One case was initially settled outside of the Commission, but has recently been renewedby the complainant. The other case is the subject of an appeal by the MRC (see also the responseto question 6 below).

(5) My Department is committed to ensuring that this MRC and all core funded MRCs and MigrantService Agencies (MSAs) meet the minimum standards of employment as prescribed by theagreements that are entered into between my Department and those agencies. The ServiceAgreement signed between my Department and MRC (Southern Tasmania) requires that workersare employed at a salary commensurate with the skills and qualifications required for the deliveryof the work program and in line with relevant legislation. All funded agencies are expected toabide by that requirement. To assist funded organisations to meet these management responsibili-ties my Department provides training for Management Committees, and in this case is representedon the Management Committee of MRC (Southern Tasmania) in an ex-officio capacity. Ultimatelegal responsibility for employment matters rests with the funded organisation.

(6) I am advised that the Management Committee of MRC (Southern Tasmania) appealed the decisionof Commissioner Abbey of the Industrial Relations Commission because the decision stipulatedthat the date for Mrs Adamson to return to work should be 12 June 2001. I am advised that theManagement Committee believed that this was too soon for an effective reintegration plan to beput in place for her return and that the MRC needed further time to arrange that process. I am alsoadvised that the MRC is nonetheless committed to Mrs Adamson being returned to work at theMRC and is facilitating that process as soon as practicable.

Rail: Alice Springs to Darwin Railway(Question No. 2707)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon no-tice, on 20 June 2001:(1) With respect to agreement/s entered into by the Commonwealth Government in relation to the

financing of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, what are the final financial commitments and ar-rangements for those commitments for the South Australian, Northern Territory and Common-wealth Governments and the private sector.

(2) Is this the final financial contribution of the Commonwealth Government to this project.(3) Is there any reference in the final financial agreement that would enable a further call on the

Commonwealth for additional funding; if so what is it.


(4) Is the Commonwealth committed, or likely to be called to commit, to any other type of contribu-tion to this project; if so, what are the details.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) (2) and (3)—

The agreements entered into by the Commonwealth allow for the provision of Commonwealthfunds of up to $191.4m in the form of a grant. $20.05m of this total is being provided on a stand-by basis.The Northern Territory Government has advised that it is providing financial support of $191.4mto the project and the Government of South Australia has advised it is providing $176.4m. TheCommonwealth is not party to agreements relating to financing provided by South Australia, theNorthern Territory or the private sector.The Northern Territory Government has provided an assurance that there will be no further claimsfor Commonwealth support for the project and a statement to this effect has been included in thefinal financial arrangement.

(4) The Commonwealth has entered into a long-term peppercorn lease of the existing line betweenTarcoola and Alice Springs to the consortium building the railway.

Visas: Temporary Protection(Question No. 2708)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, uponnotice, on 20 June 2001:(1) How many persons, by country of citizenship, have been (a) granted and (b) refused a (TPV) since

their introduction.(2) In considering requests for TPVs, has his Department gathered information on what is the ex-

pected number of people who would seek to come to Australia under existing family reunion ar-rangements if they were extended to TPVs; if so, what are the projections by country of citizen-ship for those (a) granted and (b) not yet granted TPVs.

Mr Ruddock—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) Since the introduction of the TPV on 20 October 1999 to 31 May 2001, there have been 5,093

TPV grants and 843 refusals. A summary of TPV grants by nationality is at Table A below andTPV refusals by nationality at Table B below.

(2) Information on the number and type of family members offshore for each TPV applicant is cap-tured by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) at the individual caselevel. DIMA systems changes to be introduced later this year will enable precise aggregated in-formation to be gathered on the potential family member sponsorship flow-on from TPV holders.Conservative estimates of an average of two family unit members offshore for each TPV holderwould lead to a potential exposure of up to 10,186 family sponsorship applications flowing fromexisting TPV holders, provided that those TPV holders were successful in gaining permanent resi-dence at the end of their TPV period.Each protection visa application is individually assessed on its merits and volumes of TPV deci-sions will depend on the rate of future unauthorised arrivals. If unauthorised arrivals arrive at arate of 458 per month in 2001-2002, at historical nationality composition and approval rates, therewould be some 4,122 TPV approvals flowing from the unauthorised arrivals in that year.

TABLE ATotal TPV Grants - 1 November 1999 to 31 May 2001By Citizenship

Citizenship PersonsAFGHANISTAN 2157ALBANIA 3ALGERIA 6ANGOLA 1


Citizenship PersonsBAHRAIN 2BULGARIA 1CANADA 2CHINA (SO STATED) 1CHINA, PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF 1EGYPT, ARAB REPUBLIC OF 1INDIA 1IRAN 207IRAQ 2469JORDAN 4KOREA, DEM PEOPLES REP OF 1KUWAIT 13LEBANON 4MOROCCO 1PAKISTAN 9PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY 43SAUDI ARABIA 1SOMALIA 7SRI LANKA 64STATELESS 52SUDAN 1SYRIA 18TURKEY 23

Total 5093

TABLE BTotal TPV Refusals - 1 November 1999 to 31 May 2001By Citizenship

Citizenship Persons

AFGHANISTAN 101ALBANIA 5ALGERIA 9ARMENIA 1BANGLADESH 19BRITISH NATIONAL OVERSEAS 1BURMA 2CAMBODIA, THE KINGDOM OF 1CHILE 1CHINA (SO STATED) 18CHINA, PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF 157COMOROS 2CONGO 1EGYPT, ARAB REPUBLIC OF 3ETHIOPIA 1FIJI 1


Citizenship Persons

GHANA 3INDIA 11INDONESIA 1IRAN 233IRAQ 87JORDAN 1KENYA 1KOREA, DEM PEOPLES REP OF 2KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 1KUWAIT 3LEBANON 6LIBERIA 1LIBYA 1MALAYSIA 2MOLDOVA 3MOROCCO 5MOZAMBIQUE 1NEPAL 1NIGERIA 14OMAN 1PAKISTAN 16PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY 44PHILIPPINES 1ROMANIA 4RWANDA 4SAUDI ARABIA 1SIERRA LEONE 3SINGAPORE 1SOMALIA 7SRI LANKA 7STATELESS 8SUDAN 1SYRIA 10TANZANIA 1TUNISIA 2TURKEY 17UGANDA 1UNKNOWN 4YEMEN 3YUGOSLAVIA, FED REPUBLIC OF 7

Total 843


World Leisure Congress: Declaration on Leisure and Globalisation(Question No. 2709)

Mr Melham asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:What steps has Australia taken to implement the Declaration on Leisure and Globalisation adopted atthe 5th World Leisure Congress in Sao Paulo in October 1998.

Miss Jackie Kelly—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:This Government is encouraging Australians to take advantage of their leisure time and increase theirparticipation in sport or simply take a break.On the 24th April 2001 the Government announced its new policy for Australian sport, ‘Backing Aus-tralia’s Sporting Ability - A More Active Australia’, which included a package of $82 million over fouryears - an increase of $32 million - to significantly increase the numbers of Australians playing sport atthe local club and school participation level.The Government has also set a new benchmark for industry partnerships through the ‘See Australia’program which encourages more Australians to take a ‘home-grown’ holiday.This campaign, which is jointly funded by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and theindustry, is based on solid research into what motivates Australians in making their travel choices andserves as a reminder for Australians to take a break.

Australian Defence Industries: Bushmaster Contract(Question No. 2711)

Mr Gibbons asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:(1) Has the production commencement date of early 2000 for the Australian Defence Industries (ADI)

Bushmaster contract at ADI’s Bendigo facility been changed initially to 2001 and then furtherpostponed to 2003.

(2) Are job redundancies at the Bendigo plant likely because of the delay in commencing production.(3) What is the reason for the delay.(4) When will production of the Bushmaster armoured personnel carrier commence.

Mr Reith—The answer to the honourable member’s questions is as follows:(1) The Bushranger contract, signed in May 1999, required ADI to commence delivery of production

vehicles in July 2000. However, the Department’s evaluation of the prototype Bushmaster vehi-cle, delivered in April 2000, identified a number of technical shortfalls that require rectificationbefore the design can be finalised. Consequently, approval to commence production has not yetbeen granted. We expect to agree a revised production schedule by December this year.

(2) The Department is not aware of the number of job redundancies, if any, intended at ADI’sBendigo plant and the question should be addressed to the company.

(3) The delay in commencing production is due to technical shortfalls in the vehicle prototype.(4) Subject to the successful conclusion of negotiations on the way ahead to rectify the vehicle short-

falls and further evaluation of another prototype, series production is expected to commence inlate 2003.


Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20June 2001:(1) Further to part (7) of the reply to question No. 2477, Hansard, 7 June 2001 page 27665, by what

criteria has the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) been very successful in sharing the noise.(2) Is the aggregate movements of aircraft to the north of Sydney Airport still approximately 27.3%.(3) Is the LTOP for Sydney Airport forecast for movements to the north 17%.(4) Are there approximately 60% more movements to the north of Sydney Airport than forecast in the

LTOP.


(5) Further to part (10) of the reply to question No. 2477, is he aware of the minutes of the SydneyAirport Community Forum, including various resolutions requesting project scheduling for theimplementation of the LTOP and requests for discrete start and end dates for the implementationof the LTOP.

(6) Has Airservices Australia given him or any other person reasons why the LTOP has not been fullyimplemented; if so, what are those reasons.

(7) Will he table a copy of those reasons in the House.(8) Will he request from Airservices Australia a date when it expects the full implementation of the

LTOP to be complete; if so, when will he make this request.(9) Further to part (12) of the reply to question No. 2477, did the environmental impact statement on

Sydney West Airport undertaken in 1996, consider the do nothing option of no Sydney West Air-port being built.

(10) In light of the leasing of Sydney Airport without the existence of Sydney West Airport, has agenuine environmental impact statement considered the foreshadowed environmental impact.

(11) Is there is no satisfactory solution to the current aircraft noise problem in Sydney.(12) Further to part (15) of the reply to question No. 2477, does the Governments announcement of 13

December 2000 to use Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport mean that Sydney and Bank-stown Airports are too close for their intended use; if not, why not.

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) The Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) has been very successful in reducing overflights of those

areas to the north of the Airport which were the most severely affected communities under theprevious Government’s operating regime.The Plan has brought about an approximate 40% reduction in the number of landings from thenorth compared to the arrangements in place under the previous Labor Government. By openingthe east-west runway it is now possible to rotate the runways in use so that areas are given a breakfrom aircraft noise for at least some periods on most days. Prior to March 1996 all aircraft takingoff to the north had to use the main runway and travel to the Parramatta River before turning to-wards their destination. Under LTOP departures to the north are shared between the two parallelrunways and almost all aircraft taking off from the main north-south runway turn toward thenorth-west before reaching the Parramatta River so that, as far as possible, areas receiving noisefrom aircraft arriving from the north gain respite when aircraft are taking off to the north.

(2) For the year 2001, the aggregate movements of aircraft to the north of Sydney Airport up until31 May is 29.4%.

(3) and(4) I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (1) of question No. 2600.(5) The Chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum writes to me following every meeting of the

Forum to report on the actions and resolutions.(6) and (7) The Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) has been substantially implemented with the excep-

tion of a small number of elements. For example, the restructuring of the arrival airspace has yetto be implemented. This includes implementation of the “trident” and “power-off” approaches. Anumber of complexities associated with safety and operational constraints have impinged on theimplementation of this part of the Plan.

(8) Airservices Australia has indicated that work on the implementation of LTOP is continuing.(9) and (10) The Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Second Sydney Air-

port Proposal, which was released in 1999, addressed the “Do Nothing” option.(11) I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (7) of question No. 2477.(12) No. I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (16) of question No. 2477.

North Korea: Australian Aid(Question No. 2717)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:(1) Further to his reply to part (2) of my question No 2545, through what multilateral channels is fur-

ther humanitarian assistance to North Korea being considered.


(2) When will the Government’s consideration to provide further humanitarian assistance to NorthKorea be finalised.

Mr Downer—The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:(1) Australia will provide humanitarian assistance to North Korea through those multilateral organi-

sations that are operating in DPRK such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF.(2) On the 28th June I announced the provision of further $5 million for the purchase of Australian

wheat to be distributed through the World Food Programme’s emergency food operation. Australiawill also continue to provide training in high priority areas through UNICEF.

Defence: Stockton Rifle Range(Question No. 2718)

Mr Horne asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:(1) Was the expected revenue from the sale of Stockton Rifle Range included in forward asset sales

by his Department in the 2001 Budget.(2) What value was attributed to the Stockton Rifle Range.(3) How was the value determined.(4) Are there any conditions related to usage that will apply to a purchase.

Mr Reith—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) The revenue from the sale of the Stockton Rifle Range has been programmed for receipt in the

2001-02 financial year.(2) The value of the Stockton Rifle Range has been ascertained from an independent valuation con-

ducted by the Australian Valuation Office (AVO) in May 1998. The AVO placed a market valueof $630,000 at that time.

(3) The valuation was determined on the basis of the continued use of the property as a rifle range.(4) The usage of the property would be subject to local planning requirements administered by the

Port Stephens Council.

Australian Defence Force: East Timor(Question No. 2720)

Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) On what date did the Australian Training Support Team – East Timor (ATST-EM) commence

operations.(2) How many service men and women are currently serving with ATST-ET and to whom does the

Team report.(3) Do the condition of service for Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel serving with ATST-EM

differ from those applying to all other ADF personnel serving in East Timor; if so, what are thedetails and the reason for the different treatment.

(4) In what sector of East Timor does the Team operate and who is responsible for the provision ofsecurity for it.

Mr Reith—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) 7 personnel assigned to the Australian Training Support Team – East Timor (ATST-ET) com-

menced the provision of training support in Aileu on 26 February 2001.(2) The Team is currently comprised of 24 personnel. The officer commanding the team reports di-

rectly to:• the Defence Liaison Officer in Dili for matters concerning the delivery of the defence coop-

eration program; and• the Commander Australian Contingent – East Timor for matters specific to security, ADF per-

sonnel and discipline.(3) The tasks being performed by the members of the ATST-EM are training support activities and are

considered ‘peacetime’ in nature. It is not possible to arm members of the ATST-EM because theyare not part of the United Nations Peacekeeping operation. Accordingly the ‘peacetime’ long-term


conditions of service package applies to the team, as it does to all other ADF personnel serving inEast Timor under similar circumstances. ADF members serving with the United Nations Admini-stration in East Timor (UNTAET) are armed and tasked with enforcing peace. Accordingly theyhave been approved to receive ‘warlike’ conditions of service in recognition of the warlike natureof the tasks on which they are engaged.

(4) The Team is located in Sector Central. The Portuguese contingent of the United NationsPeacekeeping Force is responsible for the provision of security in Sector Central.

Australian Defence Force Explosive Ordnance Storage, Maintenance and DistributionProject

(Question No. 2721)Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:

(1) When did the bids close for the market testing process for the Australian Defence Force ExplosiveOrdnance Storage, Maintenance and Distribution Project.

(2) Did the Government advise the Parliament at various times that the market testing process wouldbe completed by (a) November 1999, (b) June 2000 and (c) December 2000.

(3) On what date was the market testing process actually completed and what was the cause of thedelay.

(4) How many (a) positions and (b) separate ordnance sites were subject to the market testing processand (c) what was the cost of maintaining the existing system in 2000-2001.

(5) How many (a) positions and (b) separate ordnance sites has the successful tenderer agreed to con-tinue to operate and what is the expected cost of the new system in 2000-2002.

(6) If any ordnance sites are to be closed, what are the details.

Mr Reith—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) 26 November 1999.(2) Yes.(3) A submission was forwarded to the Minister for Defence on 19 May 2000 and the Preferred Ten-

derer was announced on 28 November 2000. There was some delay in the Project due to the needto resolve operational and safety issues. Further delay was caused when project staff were di-verted to negotiating an ammunition supply contract linked to the sale of ADI.

(4) (a) 98 military and 203 civilian manpower positions.(b) 18 sites were included in the scope of the project.(c) The cost of maintaining the existing system in Financial Year 2000-2001 was $32 million.

(5) (a) 150 positions.(b) 16 sites.(c) The contract is $22 million per annum plus one off implementation costs for Financial

Year 2001/2002 of $9 million. Total costs for Financial Year 2001/2002 are estimated at $31million.

(6) One site, Somerton Victoria will be closed.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Triple J(Question No. 2725)

Mr Andren asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, InformationTechnology and the Arts, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:Does the Government currently have any plans to sell ABC Radio Station JJJ; if so, what are thoseplans; if not what is the Government’s long term position regarding public ownership of Triple J.

Mr McGauran—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Artshas provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:Decisions relating to the sale of assets or property of the ABC are a matter for the ABC Board and Ex-ecutive.The ABC has advised that it has no plans to sell any of its radio networks.


Networking The Nation Program: New South Wales State Library(Question No. 2726)

Mr Andren asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, InformationTechnology and the Arts, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) Why has the Government, through the Networking the Nation program, made funds available to

the NSW State Library to finance the installation of broadband internet access in up to 90 districtswithout any consultation with existing commercial internet service providers (ISPs) in those dis-tricts.

(2) Is the Government concerned that Networking the Nation staff have advised at least one regionalISP not to invest in broadband technology such as duplex satellite and wireless as the State Li-brary of NSW will be providing broadband in direct competition with the local ISP; if so, whataction will be taken; if not, why not.

(3) Does the Government condone the use of Networking the Nation funding to establish serviceswhich directly impact on the future viability and expansion of legitimate regional, commercial op-erators; if so, why; if not, why not.

Mr McGauran—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Artshas provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:(1) The independent Board of the Networking the Nation (NTN) program approved $4,990,000 for

the NSW State Library’s Rural Link project in the November 2000 funding round, on the basisthat this would provide broadband access to 90 or so smaller rural communities across NSW con-siderably sooner and more economically than would be the case if left to normal commercial de-velopments. The NTN approval was subject to the project being tendered out, the bandwidth be-ing made available to other interested service providers, including ISPs, on a reasonable wholesalebasis, and that the successful tenderer/s would not provide internet access on a retail basis to thegeneral public, in other words they would not be in competition with commercial service provid-ers.

(2) Networking the Nation’s advice to the local ISP was that the State Library project provided an-other option for the ISP to obtain wholesale broadband connectivity and the ISP may wish to con-sult the State Library directly, to explore the opportunities for economical wholesale access tobroadband through the State Library process. The ISP was further advised that the approval of theState Library project was subject to the successful tenderer/s, firstly, not being able to retail inter-net access beyond a very limited, clearly defined group of potential users and certainly not to thegeneral public and, secondly, that any ‘excess’ bandwidth was to be made available on a reason-able wholesale basis to any interested other service providers, including ISPs, for them to retail tothe general community. The ISP should not have gained the impression that the State Libraryproject would directly compete with them in providing ISP or broadband services to the generalpublic.

(3) This Networking the Nation project does not adversely affect the viability and expansion of com-mercial providers. It does not compete in the provision of internet access to the general public.Indeed, it is expected to offer commercial providers significant benefits through provision of ac-cess, on reasonable wholesale terms, to enhanced bandwidth that they can then provide to thepublic on normal commercial terms.

Centrelink: Compensation Payments(Question No. 2729)

Mr Andren asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) How does Centrelink calculate preclusion periods for people in receipt of lump sum compensation

payments for workplace or other injuries.(2) Is he aware of the concerns of some compensation recipients that the method of calculating their

preclusion periods does not take into account subsequent increases in the ‘income cut out amount’used to determine the length of their preclusion periods.

(3) Does the method of calculating preclusion periods disproportionately disadvantage clients withlarger payments; if not why not.


(4) Will the Government consider amending the method of calculating compensation preclusion peri-ods to take into account increases in the income cut out amounts occurring after the award of alump sum compensation payment; if not, why not.

Mr Anthony—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) A preclusion period is calculated using one of the following methods:

• Settlements – When a matter settles by consent, 50 per cent of the gross settlement amount istaken to be in respect of economic loss. This amount is divided by the single person incomecut off amount for pensions applying at the time the lump sum is received and the resultantnumber is the number of weeks in the preclusion period; or

• Judgements – When a matter is finalised after a contested hearing, the judgement is examinedto determine the total amount awarded to economic loss. The economic loss component is di-vided by the single person income cut off amount for pensions applying at the time the lumpsum is received. The resultant number is the number of weeks in the preclusion period.

(2) Yes, this matter has been considered. However, it has been the view of successive Commonwealthgovernments that the primary responsibility for the support of people who are injured because of acompensable injury lies with the relevant State or Territory compensation scheme, and not withtaxpayer funded social security programs. As such, it is the responsibility of compensationschemes to ensure that compensation recipients are adequately compensated for increases in thecost of living.It should also be noted that the divisor applying as at 30 June 2001 assumes that a person affectedby a preclusion period would be able to support themselves on around $29 000 per annum. This isapproximately three times the amount a person in receipt of Newstart Allowance would be entitledto.

(3) No, the formula used by Centrelink to calculate the preclusion period takes into account the com-pensation recipient’s economic loss and so proportionally, all lump sum compensation paymentsare treated equally.It should also be noted that the vast majority of compensation recipients serve relatively short pre-clusion periods. 80 per cent of the lump sum compensation recipients who commenced a socialsecurity payment in May 2001 served a preclusion period of less than two years (50 per cent lessthan one year).

(4) No, refer (2) above.If people receiving compensation are in financial hardship, the Social Security Act provides forsome or all of a compensation payment to be disregarded. This means that preclusion periods canbe reduced or negated where special circumstances exist.

Australian Defence Industries: Staffing and Salaries(Question No. 2732)

Mr Gibbons asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:What was the total number of employees at Australian Defence Industries (ADI) Bendigo and whattotal amount in salaries and wages was paid to them (a) when the Government gained office in 1996 and(b) immediately prior to ADI Bendigo and ADI Australia being sold.

Mr Reith—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(a) and (b) Although ADI was Commonwealth owned, the company was operated by an independentBoard of Directors. Shareholder Ministers, including the Minister for Defence, were not involved in theday to day running of the company.There were no legal policy or administrative requirements for ADI to provide detailed information ofthis kind to the Government and it is not available in the department. This information should besought directly from ADI.

Bendigo Regional Arts Centre(Question No. 2733)

Mr Gibbons asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice,on 21 June 2001:


(1) In what amounts, on what dates, and from what sources did the Government forward funds tothe City of Greater Bendigo pursuant to the promise made by the Coalition parties during the1996 election to pay $2 million towards the cost of redeveloping the Bendigo Art Gallery.

(2) Did the then Minister for the Arts, Senator Alston, state before the 1998 election that a chequefor $2 million was as good as in the post.

(3) In what amounts and at what dates has the Government forwarded funds to the City of GreaterBendigo pursuant to its decision to redirect the $2 million to the further development of theBendigo Regional Arts Centre.

(4) By what date does it plan to have paid the final payment for this purpose to the City of GreaterBendigo.

Mr McGauran—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1)-(4) The Government was to provide $2 million to the Bendigo Art Gallery but when it became clear

that the money was not required for the Art Gallery it was directed to the Bendigo Regional ArtsCentre. A Deed of Grant for the Bendigo Regional Arts Centre was executed and signed on 29May 2001. An initial payment of $200,000 was released within 28 days of signing. Gradualpayments will be made on achievement of key milestones. In accordance with the Deed of Grantand agreed milestones advised by the Council, the final grant instalment of $200,000 should bemade by 30 September 2002.

Illegal Immigration: Port Hedland Detention Centre(Question No. 2738)

Dr Theophanous asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon no-tice, on 21 June 2001:(1) Is he aware of the existence of an isolation cell at Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre.(2) Is this cell used for all new asylum-seekers that have arrived by boat, who are forced to stay there

until their first interview with immigration officials.(3) Is he aware that one detainee had to wait for 16 months in isolation before his first interview, and

several detainees had to wait for 7 months.(4) What is the reason for these long periods of isolation before even the first interview is granted to

asylum-seekers.(5) Will he abolish this practice of isolation immediately.

Mr Ruddock—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) No, there is no isolation cell at Port Hedland Immigration Reception and Processing Centre

(IRPC), or any immigration detention facility. However, there are three observation rooms at PortHedland IRPC. These are not used for recent arrivals, but to monitor detainees who require closesupervision for medical reasons or who are at risk of self-harm.

(2) No, as I have just stated, isolation cells do not exist at Port Hedland IRPC, or any other immigra-tion detention facility. However, all new unauthorised arrivals at Port Hedland IRPC are placed inaccommodation that is separate from the established detention population. This is known as sepa-ration detention. At Port Hedland IRPC detainees in separation are accommodated in standard ac-commodation blocks which are in a separate area of the detention centre. The accommodation inthese blocks is the same as in the rest of the centre i.e: small dormitory style accommodation.Detainees in separation detention are able to mix with the group with which they arrived, but notwith the established detainee population in the main compound. Separation detention is main-tained throughout initial entry processing.

(3) All persons taken into detention are interviewed. These interviews are usually conducted within2-14 days of arrival. I am not aware that any detainee had to wait up to 7 or 16 months for an ini-tial interview. Detainees may continue in separation detention after their initial interview if theyhave not made claims, which prima facie, may engage Australia’s protection obligations. Theyare therefore available for removal.

(4) As stated earlier, all new arrivals to Port Hedland IRPC, or any other IRPC, have an initial entryinterview with my Departmental officers soon after their arrival. This usually takes place between


2-14 days after arrival at the immigration detention facility. Detainees are in separation detention,not isolation during initial entry processing.

(5) As previously stated, isolation cells do not exist. There is also no plan to abolish the current prac-tice of separation detention. To do so would compromise the integrity of the protection visa proc-ess. Separation detention ensures that Australia’s resources are directed at those with genuineclaims for protection and not those who would use the protection process in an attempt to achievemigration outcomes.


Dr Theophanous asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon no-tice, on 21 June 2001:(1) Have a detainee and his wife been removed from Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre and

held in custody while their two young children remain at Port Hedland.(2) Does he support such separation of family units.(3) Will he ensure that the two young children are immediately released into the care of relevant child

welfare bodies until the future of their parents is determined.

Mr Ruddock—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) A married couple who had been detained at Port Hedland Immigration Reception and Processing

Centre (IRPC) has been removed from the detention facility and placed in custody. The father isfacing a charge of ‘threatening a Commonwealth Officer’ and is currently being held at HakeaPrison. He is also facing a prior charge of people smuggling. The mother is facing charges of‘threatening a Commonwealth officer’ and ‘inciting’, and is currently being held at BandyupWomen’s Prison. Two of their sons, aged 15 and 17 years were also charged with ‘threatening aCommonwealth officer’ and were dealt with by the Perth Children’s Court. They were subse-quently bailed to the Perth Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) pending the outcome of their par-ents’ matters. Two younger children, aged 6 and 10 years, remain in the care of Port HedlandIRPC.

(2) As a general policy my Department tries to keep families together, however, given the seriousnessof the charges against the parents it was not possible in this case.Appropriate care arrangements have been in place for the two younger children being held at PortHedland IRPC. Australasian Correctional Management’s (ACM) child protection officer, in con-sultation with the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS), arranged and moni-tored their care with female ACM officers and a female counsellor. Arrangements includedplacement of the two children with appropriate adult detainees willing to take a care and custodyrole in relation to the children.Contact visits with their parents have been facilitated for all four children.

(3) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has been liaising with FACS regardingthe management of this family. All decisions have been and will continue to be made in consulta-tion with FACS and ACM. At this point it has not been deemed necessary to place the twoyounger children into the care of child welfare agencies.


Dr Theophanous asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon no-tice, on 21 June 2001:(1) Will he investigate allegations relating to Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre that (a)

many detainees, upon visiting the medical centre to receive relief from various afflictions, are toldto drink ten or twenty glasses of water instead of receiving any reasonable medical attention, (b)during the police raid on Port Hedland on 26 May, several ACM staff destroyed artwork producedby women and children detainees by painting large swastikas over their artwork, (c) an entirefamily was locked for 50 days in Juliet Block with 15 others, and given only a plastic bag to tiearound their waists, as there was no toilet, (d) a particular ACM guard at the Centre has been con-tinually responsible for flagrant abuses of the basic rights of detainees, including racist taunts,


bashings and constant torments and (e) two detainees have complained three times about the abusethey receive by this guard, but no action has taken place.

(2) Is he aware that many detainees from Port Hedland now being held in Hakea Prison showedphysical evidence of inhumane treatment against them, including scars and bruises from bashingsand handcuffs being put on so tight as to cut through the skin.

Mr Ruddock—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) An established complaints mechanism exists at each centre which allows detainees to make formal

and informal complaints to detention centre management, to officers of my Department as well asto independent investigative bodies such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commis-sion and the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office.Please be assured that both myself and my Department take seriously all allegations of mistreat-ment towards immigration detainees. All allegations are fully investigated. If they are substanti-ated then appropriate action is taken.(a) Any person who presents themselves to medical staff with a complaint or condition is fully in-

vestigated and appropriate treatment is prescribed.Dehydration is a common condition suffered by people in the detention community at the PortHedland Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (IRPC). If not addressed serioushealth problems can occur. Maintaining high water consumption can help to prevent theseconditions. Therefore, as part of an education and management program, detainees are alwaysencouraged to maintain a high level of fluid intake.

(b) I have been advised by Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) that an internal investi-gation into this matter has been completed. This investigation was based on allegations raisedagainst two Detention Officers. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.

(c) In late July 2000, Juliet Block was used to accommodate three families who were transferredfrom the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre. The longest time spent in this accommo-dation block by any of these families was 33 days. Functioning toilet and ablution facilitieswere present in Juliet Block when it was used to accommodate detainees. Juliet Block has notbeen used to accommodate detainees since early February 2001, because it is being refur-bished as part of an ongoing program.

(d) Without specific information my Department is unable to check these allegations. Neither theDepartment of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) nor ACM is aware of the alle-gations referred to in this part of the question.

(e) As mentioned earlier allegations without adequate detail are difficult to respond to. However,I have been advised that on 1 June 2001, ACM received a complaint from a detainee allegingimproper behaviour of a Detention Officer during the operation on 26 May 2001. ACM’s in-ternal investigation into the matter, which concluded on 4 June 2001, found that the specificallegations could not be substantiated.

(2) I have received advice from Hakea Prison which indicates that no detainees exhibited any evi-dence of being bashed, bruised or scarred as a result of treatment received prior to their arrival atHakea Prison.I am advised that handcuffs were applied to the detainees by the Australian Federal Police inpreparation for their transfer to Hakea Prison. This was carried out in accordance with standardpolice procedure which stipulates that handcuffs be applied in order to allow a space of one fingerwidth between cuff and wrist.

Immigration: Detainees’ Facilities, Services and Activities(Question No. 2750)

Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 26June 2001:Further to the Summary of Facilities, Services and Activities Available to Detainees, dated 14 June2001 and distributed to all Federal Members of Parliament, (a) is he able to say what Afghani cricket isand how it is played and (b) what is Aussie dingo – bazey dabelna.

Mr Ruddock—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:


(a) “Afghani” cricket is a game played by detainees last summer at Woomera Immigration Receptionand Processing Centre and is a combination of cricket and baseball. The object of the game is toscore as many runs as possible. A tennis ball is pitched as in baseball, to the person batting; thebat is approximately the same size and shape as a cricket bat. When the batter hits the ball he is torun around the outside of the field, touching at least one of several bases as he goes, if necessarythe runner can wait on one of the bases until the next person bats. One person at a time is permit-ted on the bases; once another batter hits the ball and runs, the previous runner must run for homebase. The fielders can get a runner out by throwing the tennis ball at him; the ball must makecontact with the runner for him to be out.

(b) Aussie dingo is, in fact, Australian slang for bingo. Bazey dabelna is the Arabic translation.Bingo is very popular in the centre and is played for soft drinks, chips and the like.

Education: Student Nurses(Question No. 2752)

Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, 26June 2001:(1) Are there a number of student vacancies at the various Colleges of Nursing throughout Australia;

if so, (a) what is the number of those vacancies and (b) where are those vacancies located.

(2) Would the abolition of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) for student nursesincrease the number of enrolments of student nurses at the Australian Colleges of Nursing; if not,why not.

(3) Will he consider abolishing HECS payments for student nurses.

Dr Kemp—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) Colleges of Nursing are not in receipt of Commonwealth operating grants under the Higher Edu-

cation Funding Act 1988 and do not offer HECS liable courses. Since 1994 pre-registrationnursing training has been provided by universities. Universities themselves are responsible fordeciding the number of places offered in each discipline each year. The Department of Education,Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) does not have data on the number of offers made by indi-vidual universities nor the number of places universities set aside for nursing in any given year.However, through Profiles discussions, the Department is aware that some institutions are havingdifficulty attracting students who meet the necessary academic standards into nursing courses.

(2) Previous studies on the impact of HECS have concluded that the Scheme does not appear to havehad a significant effect on applications, particularly from school leavers, or on choice of disci-pline. However, these studies have not focussed on nursing students specifically.

(3) The National Review of Nursing Education, announced in April 2001, will make recommenda-tions on mechanisms for both attracting new recruits to nursing including those from different agegroups (both male and female), and encouraging a commitment to life-long learning by those al-ready engaged in nursing. The Review will report in early 2002. The Government will considerthe recommendations from the Review, including any it may make about the impact of HECS onnursing.

Sydney Aircraft Noise Insulation Program: Fort Street High School(Question No. 2768)

Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 27June 2001:(1) Has he replied to correspondence sent to him on 25 February from Michael McGuirk, Chair of

Fort Street High School Council, regarding insulation for Fort Street High School: if not, why not?

(2) Will the Government agree to insulate Fort Street High School from aircraft noise?

Mr Anderson—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) Yes. The reply from my Office was signed on 19 March 2001.

(2) No. Fort Street High School does not qualify for insulation under long standing eligibility criteriafor the insulation program set by the previous Labor Government.


Defence: Ingleburn Army Camp(Question No. 2771)

Mr Latham asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 June 2001:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2413 (Hansard 27 November 1997, page 11589), did the

then Minister for Defence expect the Heritage Assessment of Ingleburn Army Camp to be com-pleted by December 1997.

(2) When was the Heritage Assessment completed.(3) What do the results of the Heritage Assessment show.(4) What caused the long delay in the completion of the Assessment.(5) What items of heritage significance have been lost due to neglect and vandalism during the period

of delay in completing the Heritage Assessment.(6) What action will he and his Department take in implementing the results of the Heritage Assess-

ment.(7) Will he now review the process of heritage assessment by his Department to avoid circumstances,

in which (a) his Department is planning to develop one of its sites, such as Ingleburn, for commer-cial purposes, (b) the elimination of heritage items on the site potentially increases the commercialdevelopment value of the site and (c) as a consequence, his Department has a conflict of interestbetween its commercial objectives and its heritage responsibilities.

Mr Reith—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) June 2001.(3) The Heritage Assessment provides a definitive understanding of the heritage values of the site

concluding with recommendations for effective heritage management during disposal planningprocess. The Assessment analyses the activities of the former Camp concluding that, in many ar-eas, the social and cultural history is of more importance than the architectural values. Existingsignificant items of heritage include the Cumberland Plain vegetation, the Bardia entry gates andassociated guardhouse, memorials, the Mont St Quentin oval and adjacent trees along Campbell-town Road. The Assessment recommends these and some other items be nominated for inclusionon the Register of the National Estate.

(4) The delay in completing the Assessment resulted from the need to undertake additional comple-mentary studies including a social values assessment, economic and re-use options assessment ofexisting dwellings to determine feasible and prudent alternatives. These studies continued throughuntil 2001 and their outcomes are incorporated into the Heritage Assessment. Some of the delaywas also attributable to the detailed planning of the Military Heritage Precinct in consultation withthe ex-service community.

(5) The former Theatre building, identified as having heritage value, was burnt down by vandals inDecember 1999 after additional fencing had been installed to deter unauthorised access.

(6) The Assessment will guide future land use planning and management with the Department of De-fence recently initiating steps to implement all of the recommendations of the Heritage Assess-ment. It is also proposed that large areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland will be nominated forlisting on the Register of the National Estate as well as that discrete portion of the site, which nowaccommodates the Military Heritage Precinct. The Precinct will include items of built heritagesignificance and a representative selection of standard military buildings.

(7) Like all landowners, Defence does have to address a range of issues regarding its surplus proper-ties. The Department is also required to comply with legislation and Government policies pro-tecting the heritage and environmental qualities of all of its properties. Qualified consultants un-dertake any necessary studies. Furthermore, Defence does not act unilaterally in relation to futureland use and works closely with State and local planning authorities.

Sudan: Aid(Question No. 2775)

Ms Jann McFarlane asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 June 2001:


(1) Has his attention been drawn to the plight of the communities in Southern Sudan and an innova-tive program devised by and for the people of that war zone to rebuild their communities, whichincludes a wish to establish an AM broadcasting services to transmit in 16 main languages pro-grams dealing with sanitation and sterilisation of drinking water, AIDS, family planning, primaryhealth care, peace and reconciliation, education and self-reliance through income generating ac-tivities.

(2) Has his attention also been drawn to the alleged manipulation of the Operation Life Line Sudanaid by the Khartoum regime.

(3) Has he or his Department been approached to join with the US in providing independent aid toSouthern Sudan.

(4) What measures is the Government willing to take to assist with this example of an abused com-munity developing practical strategies to solve social and economic problems.

Mr Downer—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) AusAID and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officers have been made aware of the pro-

posal by communities in Southern Sudan to establish an AM broadcasting service. This proposalmirrors a number of similar initiatives already underway by the international community. TheNational Sudan Council of Churches is being funded by Pax Christi (a group of Churches from theNetherlands in collaboration with a Dutch broadcasting organisation). To date 2000 radios havebeen provided in Southern Sudan through their “Radio Voice for Hope Project”. UNICEF are alsoproposing a similar project using satellite links to broadcast radio messages and in southern Su-dan.

(2) Although allegations of manipulation of OLS by all of the parties to the conflict emerge from timeto time, the international community is maintaining the integrity of Operation Lifeline Sudan(OLS). The Government of Sudan and the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement are bothsignatories to the OLS agreements on access to beneficiary civilian populations, along with theUnited Nations as the third party. OLS provides aid on a purely humanitarian basis. There havebeen no proven allegations of manipulation by the Government of Sudan. We will continue towork to ensure the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance.

(3) All Australian assistance to southern Sudan is given on humanitarian grounds. All aid has eitherbeen channelled through Australian NGOs operating in the region or United Nations agenciessuch as UNICEF and the World Food Programme. Australia has not been approached to join withthe US in providing humanitarian aid to southern Sudan.

(4) Sudan has consistently been one of the largest recipients of Australian humanitarian relief. SinceMarch 1996, Australia has provided over $17 million in humanitarian assistance to Sudan throughAustralian non-government organisations, international agencies and the World Food Programme.While Australia recognises the needs created by this ongoing complex emergency, there are manycalls on Australia’s funds. Due to the pressing humanitarian needs in our own region as a result ofthe crises in East Timor and the Solomon Islands, as well as the continuing humanitarian impactsof the Asian economic crisis, the focus of Australian aid is necessarily on priorities in the Asia Pa-cific region. Australia, will however, continue to monitor the situation in Sudan and respond ac-cordingly.

Visas: Subclass 457(Question No. 2788)

Mr Martin Ferguson asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, uponnotice, on 28 June 2001:(1) What are the employer’s obligations when sponsoring off-shore temporary skilled labour on 457

visas relating to employee rights on (a) workers’ compensation policy, (b) superannuation regis-tration, (c) long service leave and (d) wage and tax recognition.

(2) Do these temporary visa holders have medical health cover; if so, what are the details; if not, whatis available.

Mr Ruddock—The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:(1) All Australian employers sponsoring offshore employees are required to abide by Australian laws

applicable to Australian employees. Conditions of employment are set out in the relevant state or


federal legislation, state or federal award, Industry Sector award, collective agreement or Austra-lian Workplace Agreement under which an employee is covered. Temporary residents employedunder an award or an agreement are subject to the conditions of that award or agreement.(a) Overseas employees are covered by Australian state or federal workers’ compensation legisla-

tion. Compensation entitlements may vary from state to state. All persons who work under acontract of service, regardless of their taxpaying or residency status, are eligible for coverageunder workers’ compensation legislation.

(b) Australian sponsors are required to register all overseas employees sponsored under the 457visa subclass in accordance with Australian superannuation laws and make the appropriate su-perannuation deductions and payments.

(c) Long service leave entitlements set out in relevant legislation, awards or agreements are appli-cable to all employees covered by the legislation, award or agreement.

(d) Sponsors must sign an undertaking to comply with Australian industrial laws and Australianlevels of remuneration and conditions of employment, commensurate with any relevantawards and standards. All employees in Australia are subject to Australian taxation legisla-tion. An assessment of the tax status of temporary residents is made by the Australian Taxa-tion Office (ATO) under their Residency Tests.

The agencies responsible for particular legislation are responsible for investigations and detectionof possible breaches and enforcement of their legislation.

(2) Temporary Business (Long Stay) visa holders are not entitled to access Medicare. The businesssponsor is required to accept financial responsibility for medical and hospital costs incurred inAustralia by sponsored persons and their dependents. The sponsor may do this directly, orthrough medical insurance arrangements.

CONTENTS

MONDAY, 6 AUGUST

CHAMBER HANSARDCommittees—

Treaties Committee—Report....................................................................... 29099Government Advertising (Objectivity, Fairness and Accountability) Bill 2001—

First Reading ............................................................................................... 29102Private Members Business—

Kokoda Track .............................................................................................. 29106Statements by Members—

Governor-General: Working Arrangements ................................................ 29115Dairy Regional Assistance Program: Bega Cheese ..................................... 29115Banking: Branch Closures, Morningside..................................................... 29116Motor Vehicles: Mitsubishi ......................................................................... 29116Chisholm Electorate: Proposed St Leo’s Site Development........................ 29117Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust .................................. 29117Braddon Electorate: Bride of the Year Event .............................................. 29117New England Electorate: Regional Development ....................................... 29118Taiwanese Community, Brisbane ................................................................ 29118Motor Vehicles: Mitsubishi ......................................................................... 29119Oxley Electorate: Gleaners.......................................................................... 29119

Member Sworn ................................................................................................. 29119Ministerial Arrangements ................................................................................. 29119Questions without Notice—

Taxation: Income ......................................................................................... 29119Taxation: Wholesale Sales Tax.................................................................... 29120Taxation: Income ......................................................................................... 29121Economy: Trade Figures.............................................................................. 29121Goods and Services Tax: Access Economics Report................................... 29122Worplace Relations: Disputes and Workers’ Entitlements........................... 29123Workplace Relations: Workers’ Entitlements .............................................. 29124Taxation: Government Policy...................................................................... 29124Employee Entitlements Support Scheme..................................................... 29126Workplace Relations: Workers’ Entitlements .............................................. 29126Workplace Relations: Workers’ Entitlements .............................................. 29127Trade: Export Performance.......................................................................... 29127Workplace Relations: Workers’ Entitlements .............................................. 29128Small Business: Workers’ Entitlements....................................................... 29129Job Network: Placements ............................................................................ 29129Education: Funding for Non-Government Schools ..................................... 29130Job Network: Placements ............................................................................ 29131Education: Literacy and Numeracy Strategy............................................... 29132Homelessness .............................................................................................. 29132Defence: White Paper.................................................................................. 29133

Personal Explanations....................................................................................... 29134Questions To Mr Speaker—

Questions on Notice .................................................................................... 29135Questions on Notice .................................................................................... 29135

Assent to Bills................................................................................................... 29135Petitions—

CONTENTS—continued

Australian Broadcasting Corporation .......................................................... 29135Asylum Seekers: Work Rights..................................................................... 29136Asylum Seekers: Work Rights..................................................................... 29136Israel: Occupation of Palestinian and Arab Territories by Israel................. 29136Defence: Chicquita Reserve ........................................................................ 29137Telstra: Call Zones and Charges .................................................................. 29137Centrelink: South Melbourne Branch.......................................................... 29137Insecticides: Rebate ..................................................................................... 29138Health: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ............................................................. 29138Telstra: Privatisation.................................................................................... 29138Medicare: Bulk-Billing................................................................................ 29138Health: Diabetes .......................................................................................... 29138Sri Lanka: Ethnic Conflict........................................................................... 29139School Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment ................................................. 29139Refugees: Myanmar..................................................................................... 29139Nuclear Armed and Powered Vessels.......................................................... 29139Families: Marriage Breakdown ................................................................... 29140

Private Members Business—Nursing Homes............................................................................................ 29140Citrus Industry............................................................................................. 29147

Grievance Debate—Goods and Services Tax: Community Organisations .................................. 29153Defence: Headquarters Australian Theatre.................................................. 29155Aged Care: General Practitioners ................................................................ 29157Rural and Regional Australia: Regional Solutions Program ....................... 29159Deer Park Bypass ........................................................................................ 29159Antarctic Division: Hobart Headquarters .................................................... 29161Sydney: Crime............................................................................................. 29163Defence Headquarters Australian Theatre................................................... 29165Nursing Homes............................................................................................ 29165Nursing Homes............................................................................................ 29167Regional Airlines: New South Wales Services............................................ 29167

Business ............................................................................................................ 29169Assent to Bills................................................................................................... 29169Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 2001—

Consideration of Senate Message................................................................ 29170Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment(Wildlife Protection) Bill 2001—

Consideration of Senate Message................................................................ 29170Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation Contributions) Bill 2000—

Consideration of Senate Message................................................................ 29170Bills Returned From The Senate....................................................................... 29170Superannuation Contributions Taxes and Termination Payments TaxLegislation Amendment Bill 2001—

Second Reading........................................................................................... 29170Third Reading.............................................................................................. 29177

Bills Returned From The Senate....................................................................... 29177Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices) Bill 2001, andTherapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2001—

Second Reading........................................................................................... 29177Consideration in Detail................................................................................ 29187


Third Reading.............................................................................................. 29189Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2001—

Second Reading........................................................................................... 29189Third Reading.............................................................................................. 29189

Space Activities Amendment (Bilateral Agreement) Bill 2001—Second Reading........................................................................................... 29190Third Reading.............................................................................................. 29204

Adjournment—Redden, Monsignor Vince ........................................................................... 29204Education: Schools Funding........................................................................ 29205Basslink ....................................................................................................... 29206Dunkley Electorate: Small Business............................................................ 29207Centrelink: Carer Payment .......................................................................... 29208

Notices .............................................................................................................. 29209Questions On Notice—

Health: Alzheimer’s Disease—(Question No. 2170) .................................. 29211Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Noise—(Question No. 2303).............. 29211Roads: National Highway Funding—(Question No. 2323) ........................ 29211Roads: Calder Highway—(Question No. 2505).......................................... 29223Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Sale—(Question No. 2520) ................ 29223Defence: Copper Napthenate—(Question No. 2531).................................. 29223Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Air Traffic Control—(Question No. 2532) .................................................................................... 29224Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Noise—(Question No. 2533).............. 29226Retirees: Budget Initiatives—(Question No. 2544)..................................... 29226Veterans: British Nuclear Tests—(Question No. 2548)............................... 29227Port Welfare Committees: Funding—(Question No. 2551) ........................ 29228Aviation: Australian Advanced Air Traffic System—(Question No. 2553) .................................................................................... 29229Shipping: Foreign Vessels—(Question No. 2556) ...................................... 29230Rail: Cunningham Rail Link—(Question No. 2557)................................... 29231Insurance: Over 50s Insurance Agency—(Question No. 2563) .................. 29231Roads: Black Spot Funding—(Question No. 2566) .................................... 29231Defence: National Service Act—(Question No. 2572) ............................... 29232High Court of Australia: John Pfeiffer v. Rogerson—(Question No. 2580) .................................................................................... 29233Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Aircraft Movements—(Question No. 2584) .................................................................................... 29234Australian Customs Service: Peter Tomson Court Case—(Question No. 2586) .................................................................................... 29234G & K O’Connor Meatworks—(Question No. 2593) ................................. 29235Product Stewardship (Oil) Regulations 2000—(Question No. 2598) ......... 29237Second Sydney Airport: Sydney West—(Question No. 2599).................... 29239Defence: Salt Ash Weapons Range—(Question No. 2603) ........................ 29240Bass Electorate: Pensions and Allowances—(Question No. 2607)............. 29240Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Risk Analysis—(Question No. 2612). 29241Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Noise—(Question No. 2614).............. 29241Second Sydney Airport: Sydney West—(Question No. 2619).................... 29242Veterans: Entitlements—(Question No. 2625) ............................................ 29242National Estate: Cumberland Plain—(Question No. 2636)......................... 29243Bathurst Boer War Memorial—(Question No. 2638).................................. 29245


Veterans: Gold Card—(Question No. 2639)................................................ 29246Education: Schools Funding—(Question No. 2642) ................................... 29246Defence: Saltash Weapons Range—(Question No. 2643)........................... 29248Child Care: Funding—(Question No. 2647) ............................................... 29248Regional Flood Mitigation Program: Eligibility—(Question No. 2648)..... 29251Defence: HMAS Brisbane—(Question No. 2651) ...................................... 29252Administrative Appeals Tribunal: Veterans—(Question No. 2652)............ 29252Social Security: Bilateral Agreements—(Question No. 2655).................... 29253Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Environment Strategy—(Question No. 2666) .................................................................................... 29253Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Toxic Emissions—(Question No. 2668) .................................................................................... 29254Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and Bankstown Airport: ToxicEmissions—(Question No. 2669)................................................................ 29254Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Noise—(Question No. 2672).............. 29255Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport: Pollutants—(Question No. 2673) ....... 29256Second Sydney Airport: Health Risks—(Question No. 2674) .................... 29256Australia Post: Yellow Express Post Boxes—(Question No. 2677)............ 29257Roads: Western Sydney Orbital—(Question No. 2684).............................. 29258Australian Defence Force: 3RAR—(Question No. 2687)........................... 29258Australian Defence Force: 3RAR—(Question No. 2688)........................... 29259Telstra: Public Telephones, Fairfield—(Question No. 2691) ...................... 29259Veterans: Prisoners of War—(Question No. 2692)...................................... 29259Recording Industry: Code of Practice—(Question No. 2694)..................... 29260Adelaide Airport: Australian Noise Exposure Index—(Question No. 2696) .................................................................................... 29261Defence: Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory—(Question No. 2697) .................................................................................... 29261Visas: Electronic Travel Authorities—(Question No. 2702)....................... 29263Immigration: Migrant Resource Centres—(Question No. 2705) ................ 29264Immigration: Migrant Resource Centres—(Question No. 2706) ................ 29264Rail: Alice Springs to Darwin Railway—(Question No. 2707) .................. 29265Visas: Temporary Protection—(Question No. 2708)................................... 29266World Leisure Congress: Declaration on Leisure and Globalisation—(Question No. 2709) .................................................................................... 29269Australian Defence Industries: Bushmaster Contract—(Question No. 2711) .................................................................................... 29269Second Sydney Airport: Sydney West—(Question No. 2714).................... 29269North Korea: Australian Aid—(Question No. 2717) .................................. 29270Defence: Stockton Rifle Range—(Question No. 2718)............................... 29271Australian Defence Force: East Timor—(Question No. 2720) ................... 29271Australian Defence Force Explosive Ordnance Storage, Maintenance andDistribution Project—(Question No. 2721)................................................. 29272Australian Broadcasting Corporation: Triple J—(Question No. 2725) ....... 29272Networking The Nation Program: New South Wales State Library—(Question No. 2726) .................................................................................... 29273Centrelink: Compensation Payments—(Question No. 2729)...................... 29273Australian Defence Industries: Staffing and Salaries—(Question No. 2732) .................................................................................... 29274Bendigo Regional Arts Centre—(Question No. 2733)................................ 29274


Illegal Immigration: Port Hedland Detention Centre—(Question No. 2738) .................................................................................... 29275Illegal Immigration: Port Hedland Detention Centre—(Question No. 2739) .................................................................................... 29276Illegal Immigration: Port Hedland Detention Centre—(Question No. 2740) .................................................................................... 29276Immigration: Detainees’ Facilities, Services and Activities—(Question No. 2750) .................................................................................... 29277Education: Student Nurses—(Question No. 2752)...................................... 29278Sydney Aircraft Noise Insulation Program: Fort Street High School—(Question No. 2768) .................................................................................... 29278Defence: Ingleburn Army Camp—(Question No. 2771) ............................ 29279Sudan: Aid—(Question No. 2775) .............................................................. 29279Visas: Subclass 457—(Question No. 2788) ................................................ 29280

Documents

INTERNET The Votes and Proceedings for the House of Representatives are available at: Proof and Official Hansards for the House