2006-12-04 41 1 7 REPS 0 0 2006-12-04 The SPEAKER (Hon. David Hawker) took the chair at 12.30 pm and read prayers. 1 Committees 1 1 1 00:00:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 1 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the committee’s report entitled Report 409: Developments in aviation security since the committee’s June 2004 report 400: Review of aviation security in Australia. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr ANTHONY SMITH —This report presents the results of the committee’s re-opened inquiry into aviation security in Australia. The committee re-opened its inquiry as a result of some significant developments in aviation security since its Report 400: Review of aviation security in Australia, tabled in June 2004. On determining to revisit aviation security, the committee was cognisant of major initiatives by the Australian government to extend and deepen the security standards required of aviation industry participants, particularly the introduction of the new Aviation Security Transport Regulations in March 2005. The inquiry received 81 submissions and undertook a program of inspections and evidence gathering at major and regional centres across Australia. The committee has examined the principles underlying aviation security in Australia and their implementation by Commonwealth agencies with responsibility for intelligence gathering, regulation and law enforcement; the front-line preventative security measures of background checking of aviation industry personnel and physical security of sensitive areas of airports; developments in law enforcement arrangements at major and regional airports; and the cost imposts of and funding arrangements to support enhanced security arrangements. The committee has unanimously supported the initiatives of the Australian government in aviation security and, through its recommendations, suggested further measures that will ensure Australia continues to have one of the leading aviation security regimes in the world. The committee has made 19 recommendations that identify measures to further improve aviation security in Australia. These include reporting to the committee the number of unannounced security audits of major airports in 2006 and ensuring regular unannounced audits of Australia’s busiest airport, Sydney airport, in the future; increasing the on-ground experience of selected Office of Transport Security personnel, particularly in relation to regional aviation industry participants; establishing standards for aviation industry participants against which to measure proposed security measures; improved processes for issuing an aviation security identification card and tighter conditions and format for issuing a visitor identification card; revised reporting arrangements for the prohibited list for items allowed into the cabins of security classified flights; support and flexibility in the delivery of security training; expanding the functions of regional rapid deployment teams at regional airports; the development of an industry code for the monitoring of closed-circuit television at security classified airports; improving communication services to security classified regional airports; and negotiating funding arrangements to upgrade security at security classified regional airports. Following the introduction of the new regulations in 2005, full screening of checked baggage will be required of all flights departing counterterrorism first response airports from 1 August 2007. Whilst some argue that full screening should occur at every regional airport, the committee states that it is simply not feasible to demand screening of all checked baggage at every regional airport. As Sir John Wheeler stated in his independent report: …it is clear that ‘one size does not fit all’ in imposing security, regulations and standards across disparate airports… Security measures at regional airports should be balanced and proportionate and must be based on enhanced threat and risk assessments. It is always difficult to draw firm lines, and these could vary as a result of changed circumstances. While the committee believes that it is inevitable that additional airports will, in time, warrant screening of all checked baggage, it did not want to claim to have the expertise to identify which individual airports should be included in this category or when they should be included. In the light of the committee’s view, it has recommended that the Department of Transport and Regional Services report to the parliament within three months as to whether any additional airports should be required to screen all checked baggage from August 2007, beyond those already designated by the Aviation Transport Security Regulations, and further update its advice to the parliament twice yearly. The committee has also recommended that the Department of Transport and Regional Services report on the timetable for implementing screening of all air cargo on passenger aircraft where passengers’ checked baggage is screened. The department’s report should include consideration of the feasibility of implementing the screening of all air cargo on passenger aircraft where passengers’ checked baggage is screened by 1 August 2007, that being the date when 100 per cent checked-baggage screening from counterterrorism first response airports is required. The expansion and intensification of aviation security measures in Australia have attempted and largely achieved a balance between, on the one hand, the implementation of adequate preventative security measures and readiness to respond to a breach if this occurs and, on the other, consideration of convenience and cost to the travelling public and Australian taxpayer. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired) 2 12:37:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 0 Ms GRIERSON —I join the member for Casey in endorsing the committee’s Report 409: Developments in aviation security since the committee’s June 2004 report 400: Review of aviation security in Australia. This report was long in coming but is thorough in its work, and it certainly gets right the balance between public safety and making sure that processes are correct in order to support safety and security so that the public are able to have affordable and convenient air travel. I must acknowledge the work of the committee. Getting a consensus report that is thorough and rigorous was a lot of hard work, and a conscientious effort was made by all committee members. I also thank the secretariat. We took them all over the country. They were very patient, no matter the temperature or the place, and they certainly provided us with outstanding support over a long period of time. The contributions of those who made submissions were often very impressive, and they gave us some faith in the work of good Australians who have the interests of the public at heart. This inquiry was opened because we were concerned about security incidents in aviation and public alarm when incidents do occur. We know that the media will report things in a way that does alarm. There have been 83 public incidents since 2004, when we completed our last report, and some of those incidents did alarm people. As recently as July this year we had two cars speeding on the tarmac of Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport and also a man who arrived at Sydney airport from Canada and found things in his baggage that he had never seen before. I think the committee understood that it had a responsibility to respond to aviation security, because when it goes wrong it can be so distressing and harmful, something we want to avoid. The committee made a good decision in supporting the government’s risk based approach. There is diversity in our aviation security. We cannot do it all everywhere—there has to be flexibility and there has to be a balance; you cannot impose maximum security that will stop aviation travel at a time when it is booming. At my own airport at Newcastle we have seen an almost 400 per cent growth in passengers in the last two years. Basically the report says: ‘Let’s get it right. Let’s improve the consultation processes. Let’s keep making sure that the government invests in the right resources. Let’s make sure that DOTARS remains responsive and proactive, and let’s give a reporting regime to parliament, committees and ministers that really does say that it is accountable, that DOTARS is accountable and Attorney-General’s Department is accountable. Let’s get that right.’ The only recommendation that I do not see in the committee’s report, which some of our evidence did point to, is the need for one department to oversight all these security functions. Some of our recommendations require things of Attorney-General’s, others require things of DOTARS and some require things of the security agencies and departments. One would hope that communications between them would always be at the optimum, but the need for a homeland security department is something that both sides of this parliament should consider very thoroughly. The committee did make some fairly high demands, which I hope will be taken up. Random screening at major airports is essential to give the public, airport owners, airlines and government confidence that everything has been put in place. I particularly support the recommendation about Sydney airport, which is in my state. Sydney airport is the busiest airport in Australia and it must be very difficult for everyone to get it right. Our report recommends that there be random audits at Sydney airport. We know that baggage handling and baggage screening are difficult processes. We know too that they have to be done in such a way that no-one will have any doubt that their luggage will not be tampered with and that there will not be any links with criminality that undermine security. So there are excellent recommendations in the report. We also made some good recommendations for the people who work in the industry. Having specific and uniform training standards will give more confidence and will give more certainty to the careers of people working in the field. I commend the work of the trade unions in this area. The committee recommends an industry code for monitoring CCTVs, closed-circuit television. It should be done correctly, and having gone to so many airports I do feel that people who sit in front of those screens for long periods do need some standards in order to know that their job can be done very thoroughly. I think we also pleased regional Australia. There is a good way ahead for regional Australia. Their needs have to be considered, particularly at an airport like Newcastle, which has jet flights packed with people and which is only a very short distance from Sydney, yet baggage is not screened. So we have asked DOTARS to check that out and prepare a feasibility study on whether that should be accepted or not. It is an excellent report and I thank everyone involved. I commend the report to the parliament. (Time expired) 4 4 4 12:42:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, I present the committee’s report of the Parliamentary Delegation to New Zealand: Australia-New Zealand Committee Exchange Program, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member for Canning wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? Mr RANDALL (Canning) 12:42:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 4 Miscellaneous 4 4 Mr RANDALL (Canning) 12:43:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 4 Committees 4 4 4 12:43:00 Prosser, Geoff, MP RI4 Forrest LP 1 0 Mr PROSSER —On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources, I present the committee’s report entitled Australia’s uranium—greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world, together with the minutes of proceedings and the evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper RI4 Prosser, Geoff, MP Mr PROSSER —This is a report of the committee’s case study into the strategic importance of Australia’s uranium resources—a most controversial issue. It is a particular pleasure for me to announce that the committee has produced a unanimous report. Australia possesses some 38 per cent of the world’s low-cost recoverable uranium resources, and this immense resource endowment has an in-ground value of some $270 billion. Australia’s uranium represents a vast energy resource and is our second largest energy export. I note that just one tonne of uranium contains the same amount of energy as 20,000 tonnes of black coal. This is of great importance given the prediction that the world’s energy needs will double in the period to 2050—particularly in rapidly developing countries such as China, where one-quarter of the world’s projected increase in electricity production to 2030 will occur. However, despite possessing almost 40 per cent of the world’s uranium, and perhaps more, Australia accounts for only 23 per cent of world production and consistently lags behind Canada, which has less than half of Australia’s uranium resources. The committee has identified a range of impediments to increased uranium production and urges that these be addressed. However, the main impediment to the growth of the uranium industry in Australia is, undoubtedly, the prohibition on uranium mining—and even uranium exploration in some states. The committee is unanimous in its belief that the present restrictions on uranium mining are illogical, inconsistent and anticompetitive. The committee concluded that state policies preventing development of new uranium mines should be reversed and laws restricting uranium mining and exploration should be repealed. An underlying impediment not only to the growth of the uranium industry but also to Australia’s participation in the nuclear fuel cycle more generally is widespread misconceptions of the risks associated with uranium mining and nuclear power. In breaking through the many myths and exaggerations surrounding three key issues of nuclear waste, safety and weapons proliferation, the committee hopes the report will aid in improving public understanding of uranium and the nuclear energy industries and will correct the widely held misconceptions which have for so long impeded the development of these industries in Australia. The committee was asked to consider the potential greenhouse gas emission benefits from further uranium production. The evidence on this issue is clear: Australia’s uranium exports currently displace some 395 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, relative to the use of black coal. This is an immense saving on greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise contribute to global warming; moreover, Australia’s total low-cost uranium reserves could displace nearly 40,000 million tonnes of CO, if they replaced black-coal electricity generation. If the world were not using nuclear power, CO emissions from world electricity generation would be some 17 per cent higher and global emissions of CO would be some 2.5 billion tonnes higher per year. In view of the projected growth in world energy demand and the imperative of large developing nations to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, the committee is certain that, with the immense endowment of uranium, Australia is uniquely placed to make a significant contribution to emissions reduction through the increased production and supply of uranium. The committee believes that Australia should throw the world a climate lifeline. Australia’s uranium is, as the title of the report states, a ‘greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry’ country. In turning from the past, where Australia consistently missed opportunities to add value to its uranium resource, a majority of the committee also recommended that the federal and state governments now prepare for the possible establishment of a fuel cycle industry in Australia: firstly, by establishing that no value-adding could occur domestically, while meeting nonproliferation objectives—for example by operating a uranium enrichment facility on a multilateral basis with countries in our region either using or proposing to use nuclear fuel; and, secondly, by developing an appropriate licence regulatory regime that meets world’s best practice. The committee is unanimous in its recommendation that the Australian government take decisive action to rebuild and expand the nation’s nuclear skills base and expertise. While the committee recognises that nuclear power may not be immediately competitive in the Australian context, a majority of the committee concludes that, subject to appropriate regulatory oversight, utilities that choose to construct nuclear power plants in Australia should be permitted to do so. In closing, I thank my committee colleagues for their thought and input into this inquiry. I express my particular thanks to members of the committee from the opposition. I thank the committee secretary for this demanding report and I commend the report to the House. (Time expired) 5 12:49:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —I will start where the Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources finished. Every member of our committee thanks the secretary of this committee, Mr Russell Chafer; the inquiry secretary, Mr Jerome Brown; the research officers, Mr Muzammil Ali and Ms Peggy Danaee; and the administrative officer, Ms Penelope Humphries. We thank you not only for the support you have given but also for the superb research and the excellent writing of this report, which is the best written report ever presented to this parliament. All of its 688 pages clearly outline the situation we face with respect to Australia’s uranium industry and our exports to the world and the changes there have been in past decades in terms of the development of nuclear power and the development of different forms of the use of nuclear energy. It also gives us a prospective look at fourth- and fifth-generation reactors and alternatives—dealt with clearly in the evidence we have taken. It deals with the fact that not only can we be the biggest exporter of uranium in the world but also that the world has two significant alternatives with regard to the use of nuclear power, and these alternatives are canvassed in the report. The first is simply to use uranium in a different way—that is, instead of using it once, the products of the uranium fuel cycle are utilised over and over again so that the plutonium that is produced is used up and no longer becomes a danger to the world for hundreds of thousands of years but for in the order of 300,000 years, in which case the storage of that material in a safe way becomes an entirely different issue from what has been faced by the world so far. It is also possible that, instead of just producing 38 per cent of the world’s uranium, Australia could be the leading producer of thorium. If thorium were used as a source of nuclear power—and some countries are already looking at building thorium reactors—we could be a supplier. The use of thorium would eliminate the possible deleterious effects through the plutonium cycle. The use of thorium as a basis of the civil use of nuclear power would be another solution for a world concerned about the problems with the nonproliferation treaty. Those who gave evidence in respect of fusion argued that a fusion reactor could have been built 50 years ago. Many countries have now put their money where it is needed into research and development of a major fusion reactor in France. There are possibly other ways to deal with this. Why have we not done anything about this over the past 30 years? Why did this groundbreaking work have to be initiated by a parliamentary committee? Why is it that the debate in Australia took all this time to get going? Why did it take the work of this committee to spark off discussion by the Prime Minister, the minister and everyone else in the country on the issue of uranium? I will give you a very simple quote from one of the people who gave evidence to the committee. They said: It is easier to sell fear than it is reason. For 30 years we have been dominated by fear of the nuclear cycle and the intersection of nuclear civil power and weapons—which of course came first. Fear can only be dispelled from the human mind and heart by knowledge and a scientific approach based on fact, not by the engendering of fear itself. That is why it was critical that members of the committee strove for a balanced, open approach based on scientific fact, not one based on the spread of fear and alarm. Our future is dependent on that. One thing that might sum up this report is its recognition of people’s concern—and so they should be concerned—about climate change. The very title of the report, Australia’s uranium—greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world, reflects that concern. When I was driving to Canberra last night for a ballot today, I heard a report on jellyfish and the explosion in their numbers around the world. The world’s oceans are warming and, as they warm, there has been an explosion in the number of phytoplankton. This phytoplankton is being eaten by increasing numbers of krill. The jellyfish are eating the krill, and this has helped to expand their numbers dramatically. As nuclear power stations around the world, including US nuclear-powered ships moving their way through the oceans, draw in seawater to cool their reactors—they are not fourth- or fifth-generation reactors—they also draw in jellyfish, which can then stop reactors from working. The problem will have to be fixed by those countries that currently take Australian uranium. It is an indication of how the natural world is responding to what we have done. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member for Forrest wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr PROSSER (Forrest) 12:54:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 7 Miscellaneous 7 7 Mr PROSSER (Forrest) 12:54:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 7 Committees 7 7 7 12:55:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 0 Mr BAIRD —On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2005 (second report), together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper MP6 Baird, Bruce, MP Mr BAIRD —I have pleasure in presenting this report of the committee. Australia’s current economic expansion has continued for an unprecedented 15 years. This is an enviable performance and one which many Western countries would like to emulate. The RBA has played a critical part in this success by carefully monitoring inflation and conducting monetary policy so that it contributes to the stability of the Australian currency, the maintenance of full employment, and the continuing economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia. This long period of expansion has resulted in capacity constraints which are creating some inflationary concerns. The RBA is quick to point out that full capacity is not something to fear. For example, the unemployment rate is the lowest in 30 years. Nevertheless, the RBA, taking into account capacity constraints and domestic pressure on prices, together with rising global inflationary pressures, has recently raised rates, taking the cash rate to 6.25 per cent. The RBA advised that the current level of interest rates was in the ‘neutral’ area where interest rates are having neither an expansionary nor a contractionary effect on the economy. In relation to housing affordability, the RBA was surprised at the enormous public focus placed on the recent rate increases and their apparent impact on housing affordability. Mr Macfarlane, the then Governor of the RBA, suggested that the real problem for people was not the rate increases but the fact that houses were so expensive. During the examination of housing affordability, scrutiny focused on the role of state governments in relation to land release. Mr Macfarlane commented that the reluctance to release new land plus the new approach whereby the purchaser has to pay for all the services up-front—the sewerage, the roads and the footpaths—have enormously increased the price of the new, entry-level home. The public hearing held on 18 August 2006 was particularly productive and marked the final appearance of Mr Macfarlane, who retired during September. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the committee, to congratulate Mr Macfarlane on his leadership of the RBA over 10 successful years and I commend him for his outstanding contribution to the stability and growth of the Australian economy. Finally, I would like to advise the House that the committee’s next public hearing with the RBA will be held in Perth on 21 February 2007. The committee is obviously keen to probe the RBA on the latest rate rise. This hearing will also mark the first appearance before the committee of the new governor, Mr Glenn Stevens. I commend the report to the House. 8 12:58:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP 0 0 Dr EMERSON —The report before us entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2005 (second report) and the accompanying statement of monetary policy released by the Reserve Bank on 13 November 2006 tell a tale of economic mismanagement. We have a situation now where interest rates have increased on four occasions since the election in 2004 when the Prime Minister made a commitment to keep interest rates at record lows. The Australian people believed him at that time, but they will have learnt that he is not to be believed. Not only have there been four interest rate increases since that time but the statement of monetary policy points to the possibility of a further interest rate rise some time in the new year. I will expand on that by reference to the statement of monetary policy. The problem is that the government has not been successful in easing capacity constraints. It has been spending like a drunken sailor and fuelling consumption spending in this country. So, on the one hand, budgetary or fiscal policy is providing an expansionary stimulus to the economy and, on the other hand, the Reserve Bank is having its hand forced to increase interest rates to counteract the expansion that has been created by the government’s spending spree. In the Statement on monetary policy, it says: More recently, spending has been supported by the strong labour market and the tax cuts that took effect in July 2006. That is a matter about which I warned before the tax cuts were brought down, so I was not a Johnny-come-lately to that debate. I certainly cautioned about the expansionary impact of tax cuts that did not constitute a genuine reform, and those tax cuts fell into that category. The statement goes on to say: ... the Bank’s liaison with retailers indicates that recent spending growth has been fairly broad-based. It also says: The Westpac-Melbourne Institute measure of consumer sentiment was modestly above its long-run average in October ... The point is that consumers are rebounding after these interest rate rises and are getting another head of steam—that is, spending more and therefore putting more pressure on interest rates. In the labour market, the statement says, ‘Businesses are reporting firm hiring intentions and significant difficulty in finding suitable labour’—all a reflection of the skills shortages that this government has allowed to develop because of its disinterest in investing in education and training in our country. So there we have skills shortages and inflationary pressures from consumption spending, fuelled by government extravagance. In addition, the statement from the Reserve Bank says: Producer price data suggest that upstream inflation pressures remain strong. So all the portents are there for a further interest rate rise. I am not saying that that will happen with certainty, but the ingredients are very much there. Again, I refer to the Statement on monetary policy, which in its conclusions in relation to interest rates says: ... the generalised price pressures currently evident in the economy are likely to continue in the near term. The central forecast is that underlying inflation will remain at around 3 per cent over the next year. That is very worrying because that is the underlying rate, and it is at the top of the range. Therefore the balance of risks would tend to favour a further interest rate rise, which would be five interest rate rises since the Prime Minister promised to keep interest rates at record lows, giving Australia the second highest interest rates in the developed world. But, if that was disappointing, more disappointing has been the government’s performance on productivity growth, because today’s productivity growth is tomorrow’s prosperity. This Statement on monetary policy says, in relation to productivity growth, that the data: ... imply that labour productivity growth has been low, at 0.6 per cent per annum over the two years to 2005/06 ... It goes on to say: If firms cannot bring new factories or mines immediately on line when capacity constraints become binding, they may decide to hire more labour to work their existing production processes more intensively— and it points to that then leading to productivity reductions. This is a terrible performance on productivity growth, a failure to invest in Australia’s future by investing in our young people in skills formation and education, and economic mismanagement both in the short term and in a lack of any vision and forward planning to lock in Australia’s prosperity and provide opportunity for all. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Cook wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? Mr BAIRD (Cook) 13:03:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 9 Miscellaneous 9 9 Mr BAIRD (Cook) 13:03:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 9 Committees 9 9 9 13:04:00 Jull, David, MP MH4 Fadden LP 1 0 Mr JULL —On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of security and counter terrorism legislation. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. MH4 Jull, David, MP Mr JULL —Mr Deputy Speaker, this parliament passed a number of important legal reforms in the aftermath of the attacks on the US in September 2001. Members will recall that this first package of legislation was the subject of review by the independent Security Legislation Review Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Simon Sheller AO, QC. The Sheller report was tabled by the Attorney-General on 15 June this year. On behalf of the committee, I express our gratitude to the Sheller committee. The Sheller report was thorough and has provided a valuable framework for our own inquiry. Australia is not immune from the influence of terrorist groups and specialist terrorist offences are an important, although not exclusive, tool in Australia’s counter-terrorism strategy. Terrorism law is essentially a preventative model that allows police to intervene at an earlier stage to avoid potentially catastrophic events. It differs from the traditional criminal justice model in several important ways. For example, the definition of a terrorist act and terrorist organisation are pivotal to Commonwealth offences and expanded intelligence and law enforcement powers. Terrorism law also extends the criminal law by including preparatory offences, capturing conduct before intent has crystallised or any attempt is committed, and some offences relate to a person’s status rather than their actions. This raises important issues of both principle and practice. It would be improper to canvass the alleged facts in any case currently before the courts. However, this does not prevent the parliament from assessing the quality of legislation and responding to identifiable problems. For example, there was criticism that the definition of terrorism was overly complex, while others described the definition as the best in the Western world. The existing definition makes an important distinction between political motivated violence and other serious crimes. It also excludes ‘protest’, ‘dissent’ and ‘industrial action’ in order to send an important signal that terrorism laws are not to interfere with freedom of association, assembly or expression. No matter how heinous a crime may be, we believe it is crucially important to maintain the terrorism law regime as a distinctive area of law. Consequently, we recommend that the motivation for the terrorist act—to advance a political, religious or ideological cause—and the exclusion for protest, dissent and industrial action should remain as part of that definition. Some offences were said to lack specificity and do not meet the standards necessary to preserve the rule of law. To deal with this problem we have recommended some modest refinements to remove uncertainty and reduce the risk of unintended consequences. Unlike the Sheller committee, we have not recommended repeal of the association offence but we have asked government to re-examine the provision in light of the Sheller committee’s recommendation. Since 2002 the parliament has passed over 30 pieces of antiterrorist legislation that have strengthened Australia’s ability to respond to terrorist threats. Terrorism law is now much more than a set of core offences in the Criminal Code. For example, the period for questioning terrorist suspects has been extended and there are new procedural rules for terrorism trials; and law enforcement officials may seek control orders and preventative detention orders and the states have introduced a special AA classification system for prisoner that pose a threat to national security. The government has recognised the importance of keeping terrorism laws under review but to date parliamentary review has been sporadic and fragmented. The picture of how terrorism laws are actually working is incomplete. It is vitally important that we retain public confidence in the new laws and that we have timely and well-informed reporting and analysis. The committee believes it is time for an integrated approach to monitoring and review of terrorism laws and has recommended the appointment of an independent reviewer, who can set his or her own priorities and report annually to the parliament. We have also recommended an amendment to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to require the committee to examine the annual reports. This will ensure that ongoing democratic accountability is built into the system. Finally, we are concerned that the evidence continues to point to the negative impacts of antiterrorism laws on the Muslim communities. We acknowledge that the impact upon Arab and Muslim communities is very real and potentially counterproductive. It is incumbent upon us all to ensure that debate about terrorism is rational, open and well informed and does not fan the flames of prejudice and resentment. While terrorism poses a threat, it is also an opportunity to promote democratic ways of expressing dissent, increase participation in public affairs and promote social cohesion. In recommending this report to the House may I also say a special thankyou to the secretariat of the Joint Standing Committee on Intelligence and Security, who do such a magnificent job. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—There being no further speakers, the time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Fadden wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr JULL (Fadden) 13:09:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 11 11 11 13:10:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 1 0 Mr SOMLYAY —On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I present the committee’s report entitled The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper ZT4 Somlyay, Alex, MP Mr SOMLYAY —It gives me great pleasure to table the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing for its inquiry into health funding. A common complaint to members of parliament is that, when people are unhappy about their health care, both the Commonwealth and the states blame each other for the failings of the health system. While the associated political grandstanding often makes for some good headlines, the blame game does not benefit patients. People do not care which level of government manages or pays for their health care—they want reliable access to quality care. Addressing the blame game will involve a national approach to developing and funding health care. This will require leadership from the Australian government, with cooperation by the states and a joint commitment to end the blame game. The complexity of health delivery and financing, the rate of development of new health technologies and rising community expectations mean that ongoing reform is needed. A key recommendation of the committee is that the Australian government needs to provide leadership in developing a ‘national health agenda’, in consultation with the states and territories. The national health agenda should develop a range of national standards and principles that guide funding arrangements. It should also provide a clear articulation about what the community can expect to receive from the health system, including the extent to which rationing is acceptable. I welcome the Australian government’s recent commitment to address the underinvestment in training places over the past 15 to 20 years. This should address the concerns of many inquiry participants about reduced access to health services. Attention now needs to be paid to ensuring that there are sufficient clinical training opportunities in both the public and private sectors for rising numbers of health trainees. The committee proposes that the Australian government becomes a ‘purchaser’ of clinical training from both the public and private sectors rather than relying on the states’ goodwill. The current five-year Australian healthcare agreements expire on 30 June 2008 and governments are considering options for reform. The committee supports some change from the current funding model to remove barriers to health reform and more closely link funding with national policy standards and accountability for quality health care. Many local councils have taken up some slack and make a significant contribution to providing access to health services. Funding arrangements should more closely address the healthcare needs of people living in regional and rural areas. One key objective of undertaking this inquiry was to allow for a transparent discussion with organisations and individuals outside government about their ideas on health funding. The inquiry gave the community an important avenue for input into health policy development. This opportunity was denied in other significant health reviews undertaken at the same time as this inquiry—by the Council of Australian Governments and by a task force led by Mr Andrew Podger. It was particularly pleasing to receive submissions and hear evidence from the governments of the ACT, Victoria, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia. Unfortunately, other state governments did not choose to make a direct contribution to the inquiry—but did voice opinions in the media. During the course of the inquiry, there were significant problems in the Queensland health system, including allegations of misconduct in Bundaberg Hospital by the so‑called Dr Death. The people of Queensland deserve better—and it is clear that significant reform is needed within Queensland Health to ensure that there is no repeat of the horrors allegedly allowed to be practised by Dr Patel. Compiling such a comprehensive report relies on the assistance of many people. I thank the many individuals and organisations who assisted by making a submission or giving evidence at a hearing. Their expertise and experience is greatly valued and they laid a strong foundation for our deliberations. I must thank my fellow committee members for the assistance they provided during the course of the inquiry—in particular, the deputy chair, Jill Hall MP. I would also like to thank Mr Ian Bigg, a secondee from the Department of Health and Ageing, for his invaluable contribution to the report—and, of course, the minister and the department for making this possible. The staff of the secretariat provided an enormous amount of help in this inquiry. It is one of the most difficult and complex inquiries I have been involved with in my 17 years in parliament and I pay tribute to the secretariat, which provided us with an enormous amount of help. 13 13:15:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —This report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing into health funding has been aptly named The blame game. The one thing that became apparent throughout the inquiry was that there was always the potential to blame someone else for problems in the health system. The committee believes that the single most important thing that could be delivered to the Australian people is a transparent, accountable health system, and that would ensure the equitable delivery of health services to all Australians, no matter where they live or what their financial circumstances are. Health services should be delivered according to need and should be about what a person needs; they should not be about what they can pay or where they live. The message given to the committee can be best summed up by an opening quote from Associate Professor Green. She said: ... when we are overseas and get sick, where do we want to be? Almost without exception people want to come to Australia. All of us who have travelled to other countries would almost always say that you want to go home. So whilst I think we are actually very harsh on our own health service—I think we are very critical; I am not sure why, but we are—in fact, it stacks up against just about any health service in the world. She went on to say: ... Australia does not need to spend more money on health. We should be spending it much more effectively and efficiently ... I think she was making a very good point there. We have a wonderful health system in Australia, but we need to make it even better. This report is a unanimous one, despite the fact that the committee members approached it from very different philosophical positions. We believe that, by delivering a unanimous report to the parliament, there is a very good chance that the government will pick up on some of the outstanding recommendations in the report. I will turn very briefly to some of those recommendations. I will turn first to recommendation No. 1, which states that we should develop a national health agenda. I think that became very apparent to all members of the committee quite early in the piece. We need to have a national health agenda that all levels of government and all people involved in the health system can work towards. The next recommendation I will touch on briefly deals with dental care—a subject that came up a number of times when we were taking evidence. Turning to the body of the report, it says: The provision of dental care in a timely manner can significantly affect a person’s quality of life and future health costs. At 3.114, the report states that dental health should be treated no differently to other health services. Recommendation No. 3 of the report states: The Australian Government should supplement state and territory funding for public dental services so that reasonable access standards for appropriate services are maintained ... I think any member of this House would report that this is one of the most important and prevalent issues to be raised with us in our electorates. I think that is an outstanding recommendation and one that I hope the government will pick up on. I will turn now to the sustainability of our health workforce. Terry Clout, CEO of the Hunter New England Health Service, which is in my area, pointed out that, if you are in metropolitan Sydney, the further away you are from the Harbour Bridge, the more you are impacted upon by the shortage of trained doctors, nurses and allied health staff. Overwhelmingly throughout this inquiry it was brought out in the evidence we received that there is a chronic skills shortage across all health professions, be it in doctors, nurses, allied health workers or dentists; there is a skills shortage within the community. Terry Clout goes on to point out that the further you move away from the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the greater that skills shortage becomes. I think that the recommendations in the report should be taken up. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The member’s time has expired. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —Mr Deputy Speaker, I was denied two minutes to speak. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Member for Shortland, I was not advised. The member for Shortland. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —Could I at least make my concluding comments. I would like to draw people’s attention to the following recommendations: recommendation No. 8, on private sector training; recommendations 4, 6 and 7, on training; and recommendations 21 and 22, on private health. I would like to conclude my contribution by thanking all those who gave evidence to the committee, either as witnesses or through submissions. I would like to thank the Health and Ageing secretariat and once again Ian Bigg, who was seconded to the committee and helped us prepare such an excellent report. And, of course, I would like to thank the chair of the committee, Alex Somlyay. It has been a pleasure working with Alex. I think we have been a good team. Even though we are from different sides of this House, we have never lost sight of our goal, and that goal was to deliver a report that would make a difference, that would lead to changes and that would deliver better health outcomes and services to the Australian people. 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Fairfax wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? Mr SOMLYAY (Fairfax) 13:23:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. Resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 14 Miscellaneous 14 14 Mr SOMLYAY (Fairfax) 13:23:00 —by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 14 Committees 14 14 14 13:23:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 1 0 Mr SLIPPER —On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, I present the report of the committee entitled Harmonisation of legal systems within Australia and between Australia and New Zealand, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —I thank the House. On 7 February 2005 the Attorney-General asked the committee to inquire into and report on the lack of harmonisation within Australia’s legal system and between the legal systems of Australia and New Zealand, with particular reference to those differences having an impact on trade and commerce. The work of the committee on the harmonisation inquiry was unavoidably suspended from June 2005 to March 2006 due to two other urgent inquiries, which the committee conducted in succession: an inquiry into the exposure draft of the Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005 and an inquiry into technological protection measures exceptions. I would like to thank those who contributed evidence to the harmonisation inquiry for their patience while work on the inquiry was suspended. The committee was very interested to examine as part of its inquiry the issue of harmonisation between Australia and New Zealand. Australia and New Zealand have a uniquely close and abiding relationship, and it is a relationship that continues to grow closer over time. Over the course of the inquiry, the committee came to the view that this relationship, particularly in the globalised environment that now exists, should perhaps be closer still. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the Australian parliament invite the parliament of New Zealand to establish a trans-Tasman committee for the purpose of monitoring and reporting on ongoing harmonisation of the two legal systems. This trans-Tasman committee would also explore further options of mutual benefit to the Australia-New Zealand relationship, including the possibility of closer association or even political union. The committee has also made a number of other recommendations regarding harmonisation between Australia and New Zealand in particular areas. The committee has recommended, for example, that a common currency should be pursued and that harmonisation of the two telecommunications regulation frameworks should be proposed by the Australian government. Other areas where the committee has recommended harmonisation be pursued between Australia and New Zealand include ministerial councils, banking regulation and consumer contracts. In terms of harmonisation within Australia, the committee examined a number of specific areas under the terms of reference, including the statute of limitations, legal procedures, partnership laws, service of legal proceedings, evidence law and standards of products. The committee also examined a broad range of other areas that were raised in the evidence, such as power of attorney, real estate, personal property securities, the not-for-profit sector and the science industry. In some areas raised in the evidence, the committee was encouraged to see that harmonisation is already being progressed across the Australian jurisdictions—for example, in personal property securities law. In many other areas, however, it was clear to the committee that more needs to be done. The committee has recommended therefore that the government progress harmonisation in a number of areas, such as mutual recognition of power of attorney instruments, consumer protection legislation, regulation of the not-for-profit sector, statutes of limitation, evidence law and the model Criminal Code. Importantly, at the constitutional level the committee has also recommended that the government progress an amendment to the Australian Constitution in order to overcome limitations to cooperative legislative schemes between the Commonwealth and the states. In all, a total of 27 recommendations are made by the committee in its report. It is important to note that, since the committee commenced its inquiry in early 2005, there have been significant national developments regarding regulatory harmonisation in Australia. The Council of Australian Governments, for example, has agreed to reduce the regulatory burden imposed by governments across Australia and to identify further reforms regarding regulatory consistency, duplication and overlap. In addition, the recent report of the Taskforce on Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Business identified regulatory overlap and inconsistency as a prominent issue for business, and the government has agreed to recommendations of the task force in this regard. The committee supports these developments and envisages that its own recommendations will assist the Commonwealth, states and territories by highlighting specific areas of concern that require further harmonisation. The committee believes that its work will make a positive contribution to the progressive streamlining and simplification of regulatory frameworks in Australia and also to the Australia-New Zealand relationship. I would like to thank all of those who in writing or in person were able to provide their views on legal harmonisation to the committee. The committee appreciated both the quality and the quantity of evidence received from a range of groups and individuals in relation to this technical, complex and wide-ranging inquiry. I would also like to thank the staff of the committee secretariat for their work on the inquiry, particularly the committee secretary, Ms Cheryl Scarlett, and the inquiry secretary, Dr Nicholas Horne. I would also like to thank members of the committee. (Time expired) 16 13:29:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —Before dealing with the substance of this report, I would like to congratulate the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Mr Michael Ferguson, Kay Hull, Duncan Kerr, Daryl Melham, Sophie Mirabella, Nicola Roxon, Patrick Secker, David Tollner and Mr Malcolm Turnbull—albeit he was only on the inquiry for a few days—and particularly the chairman, the member for Fisher, Mr Peter Slipper, for his very great management of this committee and this inquiry. These members brought a wealth of experience to this inquiry from a suitably broad range of backgrounds, and I am grateful for the valuable insight that each has provided on this and many other reports. I would also like to pay tribute to the committee secretariat, including the committee secretaries, Ms Joanne Towner and Ms Cheryl Scarlett; the inquiry secretary, Dr Nicholas Horne; the research officers, Ms Emily Howie and Mr Thomas Wood; and the administrative officers, Ms Kate Tremble and Ms Jazmine De Roza. Their work is highly regarded. That they are able to produce the very high standard of work that they do in often difficult circumstances is a real tribute to them. The report, Harmonisation of legal systems within Australia and between Australia and New Zealand, deals with the fundamental tenet of reducing or eliminating inconsistencies between the numerous legal systems that have resulted from our system of federalism. There can be no doubt that the consequences of federalism have included cases of duplicity and complexity. Numerous submissions were provided to the committee detailing absurd situations resulting from a lack of legal harmonisation in Australia. While many may be found in this report, there is one example which deserves special attention. As the report states: A power of attorney granted by an individual in New South Wales (and probably other States) will not be valid in the Australian Capital Territory. Thus an individual who grants an enduring power of attorney in NSW, relocates to the ACT, and suffers a loss of capacity to make a new grant will not be covered by the NSW power of attorney. Suffice it to say that wider publicity of this fact could have the potential to surprise a great number of individuals who have taken the trouble to make a grant. This example draws attention to the fact that the operation of the law may have the power to adversely impact the most vulnerable members of our community at a time when those members most need its support. Understandably, many would not understand the wider implications of the lack of harmonisation in Australia’s legal systems, nor could we expect them to. I have been left in absolutely no doubt that the difficulties or uncertainties that arise from regulatory inconsistencies across jurisdictions may result in unacceptable impacts on ordinary Australians. There can also be no doubt that the difficulties and uncertainties which result from inconsistencies across jurisdictions may also adversely impact on profit and non-profit organisations. The lack of harmonisation in some areas of law may increase regulatory costs, increase uncertainty and increase comparative disadvantages. The scourge of red tape is ever-present for businesses and not-for-profit groups, without the added burdens that arise from a lack of legal harmonisation. While harmonisation can increase the potential for growth in industry, trade and business, it is also seen as a boon by the Fundraising Institute, the peak national body for the not-for-profit fundraising sector in Australia, which has raised the high compliance costs of its members. The benefits of harmonisation in specific contexts are readily apparent if we look at the alternatives that would present themselves in current cooperative models. Individual corporations jurisdictions across the states and territories would be an unmitigated disaster for the increasing numbers of corporations that have expanded vertically, horizontally and geographically. Suffice it to say that the national economic interest demands a national Corporations Law scheme rather than an unwieldy set-up. We recognised this in the early 1990s. While I am broadly supportive of a greater harmonisation of legal systems, I would not be so if harmonisation were to be used as a guise to extend the Commonwealth’s regulatory reach by stealth. Regrettably, many may feel some degree of cynicism towards this report in the light of the government’s use of the corporations power to move into state business in a major way through its Work Choices legislation. That is why I say this: unified goals should not be an end in themselves, and the costs of unification should always be balanced against the benefits. That is why I am happy to support this report’s approach of looking at matters on a case-by-case basis and the need to carefully evaluate the need for, and costs and disadvantages of, harmonisation in each area of law. This much is apparent from the report’s recommendations, which call for an investigation into greater harmonisation in banking regulation frameworks, succession law, debt collection, civil debt recovery, stamp duty, partnership laws, consumer protection, electrical product safety, hazardous substance reporting— (Time expired) 10000 Causley, Ian (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. IR Causley)—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Fisher wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) 13:34:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. Resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 18 Miscellaneous 18 18 Mr SLIPPER (Fisher) 13:35:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 18 Committees 18 18 18 13:35:00 Barresi, Phillip, MP ZJ6 Deakin LP 1 0 Mr BARRESI —On behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation, I present the committee’s report entitled Employment in the automotive components manufacturing sector, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. ZJ6 Barresi, Phillip, MP Mr BARRESI —I am pleased to present this report on employment in the automotive components manufacturing industry on behalf of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation. This report comes at a timely period in Australia’s manufacturing history, particularly as I note some of the debate taking place today. The report makes an important contribution to the future of the automotive components manufacturing industry. The automotive components manufacturing industry is an impressive one. It employs some 25,000 people and has an annual turnover of $7 billion. However, both employment and sales have been declining in the face of the challenge of increasingly competitive imports, changes in both employment and purchasing strategies by the vehicle manufacturers, and moves to offshore production. The findings of the committee reflect these challenges. The inquiry was timely as it presented a valuable opportunity to address these issues. Unfortunately, a number of businesses declined to participate—in a number of cases citing the fear of retribution or contract losses as a reason. That is a shame, considering that the inquiry was set up to assist this very industry. So, while the report makes recommendations critical to supporting the future of the industry, the industry itself faces some serious cultural issues. The committee examined skills shortages, recruitment and training strategies. Recommendations are made addressing the need for greater industry representation on training issues across the supply chain. On-the-job training taking place within the industry is recognised and options for formal skills recognition are proposed. The shortage of skilled workers in the automotive components industry is accentuated by the automotive industry’s image problem. The outdated image of the greasy workshop and the constant talk of industry downturn only discourage young people from making it a first career choice. The committee heard about several industry programs to get school students out of the classroom and experiencing the workplace. Some of these programs, such as those offered by the Northern Advanced Manufacturing Industry Group in South Australia, are to be commended. These programs are an important means of exposing the attractions and opportunities in automotive manufacturing today. Recommendations are made to extend these programs to other areas and to improve recruitment practices. In addition, the committee recommends the centralisation of resources for the establishment of a foundry to service the casting industries to improve the quality of training. This is an important recommendation as it notes that some sectors within the industry do not have the economies of scale to warrant the establishment of given courses in every TAFE college around the country. While some parts of the industry are facing recruitment difficulties, others have been hit hard by an industry-wide downturn in production and redundancies. Only as recently as last week, there was further evidence of some of these downturns and redundancies taking place. Recommendations are made aimed at understanding the outcomes of labour adjustment programs and ensuring that future labour adjustment programs take into account the supply chain. There is a need to focus on how to best position the industry to ensure its ongoing competitive viability and success in the global marketplace. Recommendations are also made to focus on establishing a clear niche market position of the industry. They include enhancing R&D assistance measures to ensure that Australia retains a share of the lucrative innovation and design market. While we often hear of cases of companies struggling to survive in the Australian sector, there are also companies in the automotive component manufacturing sector that are doing it well and who have established clear niche markets both here in Australia and overseas. The automotive components manufacturing industry has shown its potential to be innovative, dynamic and capable of meeting change. However, it must continue to change in order to take its place as a competitor in the global marketplace. With a skilled workforce committed to lifelong employment, and a capacity to meet the challenges facing it, the industry has the ability to secure its own future. I would like to thank the many individuals, businesses and organisations that provided evidence. I would like to thank the committee, the deputy chair of the committee, the member for Gorton, and, in particular, the secretariat—Dr Anna Dacre and Siobhan Leyne—for their hard work in working through this inquiry, often with scant evidence that was provided to us by the industry itself. I hope that this report contributes to the positive future of the automotive components manufacturing industry. 19 13:41:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to speak to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation report, Employment in the automotive components manufacturing sector, tabled by the member for Deakin. Firstly, I acknowledge all members of the committee, particularly the chair, the member for Deakin, as well as the member for Werriwa, Chris Hayes, and the member for Shortland, Jill Hall, who were very attentive to their obligations in this inquiry. Margaret May and a number of other members also put a lot of effort into this. I also join the chair in thanking the secretariat—Anna Dacre and Siobhan Leyne, but also Loes Slattery and Daniel Miletic—without whom we would not have a report as good as this. As the chair indicated, it is true to say we had some difficulties with getting cooperation from parts of the industry. That is a concern. Whether that is a cultural thing with respect to the industry not wanting to speak directly to the federal parliament I am not sure, but it certainly did not provide us with confidence that all in the industry know what the best approach is to solving some of the pressing problems it confronts. There is no doubt that this inquiry came at a very important, indeed critical, moment in the industry’s history. As the report asserted, it has been said many times that automotive manufacturing in Australia is in a period of transition. However, this report, I hope, will certainly assist the industry and assist government in seeking out the best answers to the problems that it currently confronts. There is no doubt that the inquiry focuses on skills shortages in the industry and the need to attend to those skills shortages. You have a paradox in the automotive parts industry: on the one hand there are skill shortages, but on the other you have redundancies. Surely we can solve this problem, particularly when, in the case of many redundancies—redundancies that really hurt ordinary working families across the country in this industry—there is significant lead time before they lose employment. Surely we can attend to providing proper skills and ensuring that there are fewer redundancies, if there have to be any at all, so that the industry is not crying out for particular skills. We think governments should attend to that. I think the unanimous report suggests quite clearly that all members are concerned that not enough has been done with respect to skill shortages, attending to those shortages and attending to the labour adjustment policies that have been wanting. There are some very practical recommendations in this report. It is also important to note that there is no dissenting report. This is the third report for me as deputy chair and the first time that there has been no dissenting report. This is unusual for an employment committee, given the current policies of the Commonwealth. I have to say that, almost to a witness, the employers and unions did not focus upon IR. It certainly does raise the question as to why the Commonwealth wants to proceed with Work Choices, because, in my view, clearly the major issues confronting the industry are not about changing industrial relations laws, and they are certainly for the worse for employees in this country. I think the report is worth reading. It is unanimous and it says a lot of things about what the government should be doing to help the industry. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —It being 1.45 pm, the member is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Deakin wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? Mr BARRESI (Deakin) 13:45:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. 20 Miscellaneous 20 20 Mr BARRESI (Deakin) 13:45:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 21 Statements by Members 21 21 13:45:00 Wilkie, Kim, MP 84G Swan ALP 0 0 Mr WILKIE —Last Thursday in question time, I asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training whether she or her office had authorised the provision of unpublished information to the Liberal candidate in Swan in advance of notification to me, the member for Swan. The Liberal candidate in Swan rang all schools in my electorate which had been successful in the grants applications in the Investing in Our Schools program prior to advice being given to my office on the successful projects. I asked the minister whether she or her office had authorised the provision of this information to the Liberal candidate. In her answer, the minister accused me of self-indulgence for daring to ask why the Liberal candidate was privy to this information. She said: This is a typically self-indulgent question by an opposition member who is more interested in his self-promotion than the education of young students in his electorate. In her actions in authorising the Liberal candidate to ring schools and tell them about these grants, she is demonstrating herself that she is only interested in the promotion of the Liberal Party rather than education outcomes. The minister went on to say that information on schools receiving grants under the Investing in Our Schools program was provided to each member, to state ministers, on the department’s website and that school principals had also been advised. I checked the website and there was no mention of these grants. Subsequently, I checked with the WA minister’s office, and at that stage they had received no information about the grants and neither had school principals. The minister has been caught out misleading the House and is flagrantly politicising these grants. I support these grants and am delighted that schools in my electorate will benefit. The minister needs to be reminded that this program is a taxpayer funded program and not a Liberal Party slush fund. I understand that this has been occurring in other electorates throughout Australia. (Time expired) 21 21 13:47:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 0 0 Ms KING —Today I want to congratulate and thank Foster’s Group and their CEO, Trevor O’Hoy, for kindly agreeing to return, albeit briefly, Ballarat Bitter—or, as it is more affectionately known at home, Ballarat Bertie—to production. I am sure that to return a beer to production is one of the oddest requests that Trevor has had from a politician, but it is all for a good cause. The HMAS Ballarat has as its replenishment at sea mascot the little brewer, Ballarat Bertie. The ship has recently returned from its first active deployment in the Middle East. I wrote to Trevor in July this year suggesting that one way of acknowledging the outstanding job of this very young crew was to provide a limited release of the beer. Not only have Foster’s Group done that but the beer will also make its way home to Ballarat, where $1 from every case sold will be given to the HMAS Ballarat sponsored charity, United Way. I am absolutely delighted and cannot thank Foster’s enough for their generous contribution. Ballarat Bertie was the beer of choice for many Ballarat residents and it has an affectionate part in our history. It has not been seen on our shelves since 1991. I know that this week, with the limited release of Ballarat Bertie on the HMAS Ballarat, and its availability in bottle shops later in the week, the people of Ballarat will once again warmly welcome Ballarat Bertie to its traditional home. I thank Foster’s. 22 22 13:48:00 McArthur, Stewart, MP VH4 Corangamite LP 1 0 Mr McARTHUR —I wish to draw to the attention of the House the very dangerous position we have in Victoria as highlighted in today’s Herald Sun: ‘Burn-off strategy criticised: fire menaces high country’. I am a member of the Nairn committee of this House and a member of the Stretton Group, and those two groups have been highly critical of the lack of fuel reduction burning in preparation for this year’s very difficult fire season, bearing in mind the drought. The report goes on to say: More than 1000 firefighters tackled blazes ... And that there are: ... 51 fires spread across bushland from Gippsland through to the King Valley. …            …            … ... Doug Treasure accused the state government of putting Victoria’s High Country at risk. “Almost all of the High Country now under threat had no fuel reduction burning done for 20 years and the fuel loads are extreme and tinder-dry because of the drought ... If northerly winds develop, the High Country will explode with a 100km fire front bearing down on Gippsland.” Over the years, I have been very worried that we will have an Ash Wednesday fire in the Otways. I advised that that was a possibility in the Grampians and it happened last year. We face a huge fire risk in the forthcoming four months in Victoria; fuel reduction burning would have assisted. The Stretton Group have been advocating that position over the past four years. I am greatly concerned and hope that this fire does not take place. (Time expired) 22 22 13:50:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 0 Mrs IRWIN —Last Friday I joined a rally and picket line of retail workers employed by businesses at Liverpool Westfield. The workers are protesting a $3 per day parking charge imposed by Westfield on employees of the centre. In 1991, the original development consent for the centre required Westfield to provide free parking. Westfield now claim that, as the latest development consent is silent on the matter, they are able to impose the charge. This is just another way in which the conditions of employees are being eroded in Australia. Three dollars a day may not sound like much to some people, but, for low-paid retail workers with only part-time hours, $3 a day adds up to a lot. To a working mother employed for four hours a day for five days, that adds up to $720 a year—or nearly 2½ weeks pay—at her $306 a week wage. For an 18-year-old student working three shifts, it will cost $432 a year or four weeks pay. This is nothing but a greedy grab by Westfield at the cost of low-paid workers. It is another taste of what is to come under John Howard’s extreme industrial relations laws. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind members to refer to members by their title or their seat. 22 22 13:51:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 0 Mr CIOBO —I am very pleased to speak today about the way in which the Howard government’s Investing in Our Schools program is directly benefiting Gold Coast schools. I am particularly pleased to announce that last week I had the pleasure of contacting a number of Gold Coast schools in my electorate of Moncrieff to advise them of the nearly $1 million in funding that was flowing to them thanks to the Howard government’s Investing in Our Schools program. This is money that will make a key difference to the lives of children studying on the Gold Coast, because the Queensland state government continues to neglect Gold Coast schools in favour of other schools in regions such as Ipswich and the Sunshine Coast. I was pleased to advise the Principal of Ashmore State School, Carmel Ryan, of a grant of some $72,000 and Southport’s Bellevue Park State School of a grant of $18,000. There is $100,000 for Benowa State High School, $110,000 for Gilston State School, $149,000 in total for Keebra Park State High School and $145,000 for Merrimac State High School. Miami received $78,000; Nerang State High, $18,000; Nerang State School, $24,000; and Worongary State School, some $132,000. Each of these schools is benefiting to the tune of around $100,000 thanks to the $1 billion Investing in Our Schools program. Having had the chance to go to so many of these schools and talk directly with the P&C associations, I say to them: congratulations on your hard work. I look forward to seeing this money invested and put to good use in the future. 23 23 13:53:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —Yesterday, Sunday, 3 December, I had the great honour and privilege of attending a very unique celebration in the form of a church service at my local parish at Goodna, in Ipswich. The reason it was unique was that, as part of that church service, we also celebrated a new Australian citizen in a citizenship ceremony. I am not sure, but such a ceremony could be the first in Australia—I will look at the record to see if it has been done anywhere else in the past. I know there have been a number of Australian citizenship ceremonies in a range of settings. We have had them in council halls and community halls, and I know we have had them in hardware stores. If it is good enough to have citizenship ceremonies in hardware stores, I think it is more than appropriate to have them in churches. Father Roger Burns is the man I am speaking of. He was made an Australian citizen. Father Burns was born in 1943 and originates from the United Kingdom. He has only been in Australia for four years. He spent the first two years at St Mary’s Catholic Church in Ipswich and the two most recent years at St Francis in Goodna. He is a wonderful man—somebody who has made the decision and deserves to become an Australian. The ceremony was conducted by our local mayor, Paul Pisasale, and attended by local councillor Paul Tully and me. It was a wonderful opportunity for the community to come together to celebrate this person’s decision to become an Australian citizen—no small choice to make. I congratulate him and the church. (Time expired) 23 23 13:54:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 0 Mr BARTLETT —I rise to acknowledge the magnificent work of our Rural Fire Service volunteers, particularly over the last two or three weeks, with a number of fires raging in parts of my electorate—in the Blue Mountains, in the Lithgow area and around Bathurst and Oberon as well as the Hawkesbury. These magnificent men and women, who put in enormous work for our community, really deserve to be praised. They do a fantastic job, often at great risk to their own lives, putting their own safety aside in order to serve our community. And it is not just in times of emergency either. The hundreds of hours these people put into training throughout the year to make sure that they have the skills to adequately cope with emergencies when they do arise often go unnoticed. They do a wonderful job for our community. I dare say that there are many people in the Blue Mountains, in the Hawkesbury and in other parts of my electorate who owe their property and, in some cases, even their lives to the fantastic job that these volunteers have done. So, on behalf of the community, I say to all the volunteers and the permanent staff of the RFS: thank you for your outstanding work for our community. 24 24 13:56:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —I rise to pay tribute to the former Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kim Beazley. It has been an honour and a privilege as his parliamentary secretary to serve such a decent human being. In recent times, he has had many achievements in keeping the government honest in the areas of national security, interest rates, industrial relations and global warming. This morning Kim made a very moving concession speech in the caucus. He highlighted the fact that the Prime Minister is the most formidable conservative political opponent he has faced in 26 years. Australia is restless for a change of government, and we on this side of the House would all do well to heed the wisdom, words and advice of Kim Beazley and ensure, with the manoeuvring at the moment in the factions, that we put the best team forward on the front bench to make sure we win the next election. I am calling on everyone on this side of the House to eliminate the factional bastardry to ensure that Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have the best people to take the battle to John Howard on 13 October next year and give Australia the government it deserves. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I remind honourable members that they should refer to other members by their electorate or by their title. 24 24 13:57:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —Twelve Ryan schools benefited yet again from very strong local representation by me as member for Ryan and, of course, by the Howard government’s commitment to education in our country. On Friday and this morning, I was pleased to contact the principals of some 12 schools in my electorate to promote the Investing in Our Schools program, which is providing over $700 million of taxpayers’ money to all kinds of wonderful and worthy projects in various schools. I was pleased to talk to Helen Kenworthy, Principal of Brookfield State School, to inform her that her school will receive over $93,000 of taxpayers’ money to contribute to improved library resources. I was delighted to speak to Richard Morris, the Principal of Centenary State High School, to inform him that his school had received a commitment of $150,000 of taxpayers’ money. They are going to build a portable classroom. This sort of thing should be the responsibility of state governments, and I call on the Queensland state government to get its act together and show a commitment to capital works programs in the schools of Ryan, just as the Howard government is doing for the schools of Ryan from here in Canberra. Of course, as the federal member I have the great honour of representing the Ryan community and will continue to do that. I will continue to engage with the students and parents of Ryan schools throughout the wonderful electorate of Ryan. I say to them: never before have they had stronger representation in the Australian parliament. (Time expired) 24 24 13:59:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —I repeat what I just said: it behoves all of us on this side to put the best team on the front bench to make sure that we take the battle to the Prime Minister on 13 October next year. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being almost 2 pm, in accordance with standing order 43 the time for members’ statements has concluded. 25 Miscellaneous 25 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr RUDD —I have the honour and privilege of advising the House that I have been elected leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party and that the member for Lalor has been elected deputy leader. 25 Miscellaneous 25 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr RUDD —On indulgence, I would like to place on the parliamentary record the parliamentary Labor Party’s appreciation for the longstanding service of Mr Kim Beazley, the member for Brand, and for the enormous contribution he has made to the party, the country and this parliament. I think all members are aware of the personal tragedy which the member for Brand has suffered today. On behalf of the parliamentary party, and on behalf of all members of the parliament, we extend to the member for Brand and to his family our deepest condolences at this difficult time. 25 14:00:00 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr HOWARD —On indulgence, on behalf of the Liberal and National parties, I would like to congratulate the member for Griffith on being elected as leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party. It is an incredible honour to be elected leader of any political party in this chamber, and to be elected as leader of Australia’s oldest continuous party, the Australian Labor Party, is a very significant honour. I know the member has worked very hard for it. In that context I offer him my unreserved congratulations. I would also like to congratulate the member for Lalor on being elected as deputy leader. I join the Leader of the Opposition in expressing my genuine sorrow for the member for Brand. The member for Brand and I have been political adversaries for many years now. In the years of the Hawke-Keating governments we had a lot to do with each other. In the years of my government we have also had a lot to do with each other—for some seven years as opposite numbers. He is a decent man who has served the Labor Party with great loyalty and great commitment all of his adult life. I feel particularly for him today at the death of his brother and for his elderly parents. I served in the parliament with his father—he is a lovely man. It is a brutal game, politics, and it has all happened in a way that must be very hurtful to him. I wish him well. I look forward to the months ahead. 25 14:03:00 Questions Without Notice 25 14:03:00 25 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. It refers to the report of the House of Representative Standing Committee on Health and Ageing tabled today, entitled The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding, which finds that the community is getting sick of blame shifting between governments about the inadequacies of Australia’s health system. What action will the Prime Minister take to stop the blame game in health between the Commonwealth and the states? Why has the Prime Minister rejected major reform of the health system, despite the fact that the health minister has described the current funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states as ‘a dog’s breakfast’? 25 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The government has already taken a large number of very significant measures to end the blame game. In the area of mental health we reached an agreement more than a year ago that both the Commonwealth and the states would increase their commitment. We put our money on the table, and I might say to the Leader of the Opposition that we put our money on the table unconditionally. We said we would spend $1.9 billion more, irrespective of how the states responded. To date, I am sorry to say, not all of the states have responded very well. Victoria is the best. Victoria has matched the Commonwealth to the tune of about 80 per cent of its pro rata share; New South Wales and the ACT, about 70 per cent; Queensland, I think, is about half; Tasmania, Western Australia and the Territory have not contributed any new money. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that the way forward in these areas is cooperative action between the Commonwealth and the states. We had a deal, an understanding, on mental health. We have honoured our share of the agreement. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could talk to his friend the Premier of Queensland and ask the Premier of Queensland to lift from 50 to 100 per cent his obligation under the understanding we reached. 26 26 14:04:00 Jull, David, MP MH4 Fadden LP 1 Mr JULL —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What international efforts are being made to support the democratically elected government of Fiji? 26 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —First, can I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question and his interest. The government was very concerned at the statements that were made by Commodore Bainimarama, the commander of the Fiji military force, over the weekend. He is threatening the government—demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister and the government. Yet this is a government that was democratically elected only a few months ago, in May. The election observer team from the Pacific Islands Forum, which included some members of this House, concluded that those elections were free and fair. It is clear that Fiji is on the brink of a coup. This government and I think it is fair to say that this country supports the continuation of the democratically elected government. We support the constitution and we support the rule of law. Last Friday, foreign ministers at the Pacific Islands Forum came together in Sydney. The statement made by those foreign ministers is an important illustration of the unity of the region in support of the constitution, in support of democracy and in support of the rule of law in Fiji. This is not just an Australian or an Australian and New Zealand view. This is the unanimous view of the Pacific Islands Forum. The meeting in Sydney established the Eminent Persons Group, the composition of which is up to the Pacific Islands Forum Secretary-General, Greg Irwin. We are putting forward a retired Australian military officer, and, hopefully, he will be taken up by Greg Irwin and there will be other members of the Eminent Persons Group who will visit Fiji as soon as possible, I would like to feel, before the government has been forcibly removed by the military. The Eminent Persons Group will have an opportunity to engage constructively with all the players there and, hopefully, to assist. But, so far, Commodore Bainimarama is maintaining his rhetoric and his commitment to destroy democracy, to break the country and to undermine its constitution. As a government we warmly welcome the statement made by the United Nations Security Council calling for the military to exercise restraint and to avoid taking any action which would undermine the rule of law and run counter to the best interests of Fiji. The American Department of State has expressed similar sentiments, and the Commonwealth Secretary-General likewise. If Commodore Bainimarama wishes to listen to the voices of the world, the voices of the world are saying, ‘Stay with the constitution, stay with the rule of law and allow the democratically elected institutions to do their job.’ 27 27 14:08:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister and again refers to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing report into health financing entitled The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding, which recommends that the Commonwealth: ... should supplement state and territory funding for public dental services so that reasonable access standards for appropriate services are maintained ... What action will the Prime Minister now take to reinstate Commonwealth funding to dental services across Australia? 27 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —As with all reports of this kind the government will examine it. DT4 Crean, Simon, MP Mr Crean interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —No. The member for Hotham is looking happy today. The government will naturally examine that report. Can I say that, historically, the delivery of dental services has been the responsibility of the states. Opposition members interjecting— ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Those who sit opposite talk about ending the blame game. You cannot end the blame game unless both sides of the federal compact discharge the responsibilities which are historically theirs. That is the complaint we have about the states and about the Labor Party in relation to these matters. If you look at health in the broad over the last few years, you can see that the Commonwealth has injected hundreds of millions of dollars into health care. The Labor Party complains about Medicare, yet bulk-billing rates are now back to record levels: they are at record levels for older people and they are at record levels for children under the age of 16. As far as dental services are concerned, the Commonwealth contributes some 30 per cent in rebate for private health insurance and we have increased the rebates for older people. The states are responsible for the dental care of their communities, and it is about time they carried out those responsibilities. 27 27 14:10:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 Mr HARTSUYKER —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the government is delivering local road infrastructure, especially in my electorate of Cowper? How is the government helping local government to meet the needs of regional communities? 27 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr VAILE —I thank the member for Cowper for his question. He would be well aware of the roads programs that the Commonwealth operates, which deliver significant benefits and assistance to local government. In recent years almost $20 million has been delivered through the Roads to Recovery program to the four councils in the electorate of the member for Cowper. As well, a number of other road projects have been funded by the Commonwealth but are not directly the responsibility of the Commonwealth. As the member knows, that important link between Sawtell and Coffs Harbour, Hogben Drive, is an important piece of local infrastructure and is an indication of what the Commonwealth, our coalition government, is doing to assist the pressures placed upon local councils and local government. There are 650,000 kilometres, or 80 per cent, of all Australians roads which are the responsibility of local government. They have revenue sources from their rates base, and they traditionally have had revenue streams, in both tied and untied grants, from state governments. Historically they have never had direct access to funding from the Commonwealth to look after these roads. But, increasingly, the state governments have moved away. We have heard mention today of cost-shifting. There is a massive amount of cost-shifting that takes place between state governments and local government in the area of roads. The federal government has had to step in to assist local governments in the maintenance of those roads, because road infrastructure right across Australia is vital to the Australian economy. So far, 25,000 local road projects have been funded under Roads to Recovery since we introduced the program in 2001. Almost $2 billion worth of resources has gone into local roads across Australia, not just in regional Australia. These are very important investments for the overall economy, particularly for local economies. The other area we have been engaged in and kept going—and actually revitalised in 1996—which the member for Cowper would be well aware of, is the National Road Safety Black Spot Program, which was axed in the dying days of the Hawke-Keating government. We reconstituted it, and about $500 million since 1996 has been spent on road black spots, fixing up 4,000 of the most dangerous sections of local roads across Australia. That initiative is directly saving lives, the lives of a lot of young people, across Australia. Last week the Australian Local Government Association had their conference in Canberra. They praised the federal government’s commitment to local road infrastructure and have pledged to continue to work with the federal government in this area because it is so important to local economies and, therefore, to the national economy. We should remember that the reason this is necessary is that so many of the state government programs are underfunded as far as assisting local governments in looking after their road networks is concerned. We have seen that need in our communities across Australia. We have stepped into the breach to assist in this area because it is vital to the national economy as well as to the local economies, and it is vital to our task of keeping the national economy strong. 28 28 14:14:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm to the House that there have now been 55 consecutive monthly trade deficits, the most ever recorded? Prime Minister, why is the trade account still in the red despite the resources boom? When does the government believe Australia will next achieve a trade surplus? 28 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part of the question is the historic structure of the Australian economy and the fact that we are now going through an unbroken period of economic growth and expansion. When you have economic growth and expansion, you drag in a lot of imports. The idea that you measure the performance of the Australian economy just by that particular yardstick is very ill-informed. I can also confirm that we have the lowest unemployment in 30 years. I can also confirm for the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition that, against an OECD average of net government debt of about 47 per cent, ours sits at zero—despite the inheritance from the person whose policy foundations he so lavishly praised at his inaugural press conference. I can also confirm to the Leader of the Opposition that this country is experiencing the 16th consecutive year of economic expansion. Given the historic structure of the economy, it is not surprising that the factors that he drew attention to should be occurring. 28 28 14:16:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 Mr KEENAN —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer outline to the House recent data on the Australian economy? What does this indicate about the need for ongoing strong and stable economic management? 29 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP Treasurer 1 Mr COSTELLO —I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. ANZ job advertisement figures released today showed that job advertisements were down in the month and that the number of advertisements was 5.5 per cent lower than at the same time last year. This should not surprise, because we have seen exceptional job creation through the course of this year. Over the course of the last 12 months we have seen 245,600 new jobs created in Australia, so to see something of a pause would not be a surprise at all. Building approvals data was also released today. Although the data showed that approvals were down in the month of October, it was coming off a strong rise in September. Building approvals are now around 1.8 per cent lower than at the same time last year. This probably illustrates that, after some years of a pause in the housing market, there are tentative signs that housing is beginning to pick up again but not in any unsustainable way. I think most people who look at the economy will see both of these indicators as something of a pause in the strong economic growth we have had for several years. We are also seeing considerable differentiation between the states. Job advertisements were up in Queensland and Western Australia, but there were substantial falls in New South Wales and Victoria, down 4.1 per cent in New South Wales and 5.1 per cent in Victoria. So we are seeing quite an element of differentiation between different parts of Australia. All of this shows that economic management in the year ahead will be challenging, as it always is. The Australian economy is expected to reach $1 trillion in the current financial year—this is a $1 trillion economy, and it takes careful management. And that is what this government does. It engages in strong and careful management of the economy—the kind of management that people need when they are risking their livelihoods and their homes. I will miss the member for Lilley as the spokesman on economic matters for the opposition, as a consequence of today’s announcement. I certainly look forward to the member for Lalor becoming the shadow Treasurer. I look forward very much to exchanges with her at the dispatch box in the way that I have had them with her six predecessors since 1996. I would just recommend to her that when — WU5 O’Connor, Gavan, MP Mr Gavan O’Connor —You wouldn’t ever put yourself in a position to take on a leadership ballot! CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —A voice from the grave—the member for Corio! And long may he stay on the front bench. He has every support from this side of the parliament, right through to the time of the next election. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —You never had the guts to take on a leadership ballot. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Melbourne is warned. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —I would recommend that the member for Lalor go carefully in relation to economic management. This is a delicate business, and it takes some considerable skill to manage a $1 trillion economy. 29 29 14:20:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with comments by former Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane, made in the Boyer lectures, that a lasting legacy of the economic management in the early 1990s was that ‘Australia had an inflation rate that was in line with world’s best practice; we had returned to being a low-inflation country’? Prime Minister, hasn’t the government’s failure to address skills shortages and infrastructure bottlenecks resulted in core inflation now rising above world’s best practice, with real implications for the cost of living for Australia’s working families? 30 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —No. 30 30 14:21:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 Mr JOHNSON —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House and the Ryan electorate on the current situation in the Philippines following the recent typhoon? What is Australia’s humanitarian response? 30 Downer, Alexander, MP 4G4 Mayo LP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr DOWNER —I thank the honourable member for Ryan for his question. I am happy to update the Ryan electorate as well as the parliament. Typhoon Durian—it is also known as Typhoon Reming—struck the east coast of the island of Luzon in the Philippines on Friday morning. We believe that over 400 people have been confirmed dead as a result of the typhoon. There are around 400 people missing. According to the Philippines Red Cross, the death toll could rise to around 1,000. Many villages have been buried by mudslides. In total, something like 800,000 people will be affected and 100,000 homes are estimated to have been damaged or destroyed. In a situation like this, involving a near neighbouring country to Australia, it is appropriate that we respond. We have immediately set aside $1 million for humanitarian relief to be distributed through the Philippines Red Cross, UNICEF and the UNDP working in the affected areas. AusAID is working with a number of relief agencies on the ground to help address the issues of a coordination nature that may arise. At this stage, we do not know how much assistance will be needed. As I said, we have set aside $1 million, but it may be that there is more or less for us to do. We certainly have the capacity to provide considerably more assistance if there is a need to do so. Our ambassador has conveyed Australia’s condolences to President Arroyo in relation to the typhoon and its impact. President Arroyo has in a speech publicly thanked Australia for the support we have given, as well as for the support we have given in the troubled southern part of the Philippines in Mindanao. As usual, Australia stands ready to provide humanitarian assistance to one of our neighbours. In a situation like this, when so many people in the Philippines are so grievously affected, it is the least that we could do. 30 30 14:24:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is again to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, if today’s productivity growth is tomorrow’s prosperity, why has Australian productivity failed to grow in any real respect for two years? 30 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —The productivity growth that this country has experienced over the past few years is a product of earlier reforms. One of the reasons that we are reforming industrial relations is to deliver further productivity reform. If the Leader of the Opposition is really committed to lifting productivity, he will alter Labor’s backward-looking industrial relations policy. It is fascinating that the Leader of the Opposition has asked me about productivity, because at the core of productivity gains in the future is providing further flexibility for the Australian labour market. That is why we have brought in Work Choices. Yet the Leader of the Opposition, having been told to do so by Sharan Burrow an hour and a half earlier, has recommitted the Australian Labor Party to repealing Work Choices. If Work Choices is repealed, one thing is certain: the productivity gains that this country could otherwise have will be denied to it. It is true that tomorrow’s prosperity is a product of today’s reform. Today’s reform needed to deliver tomorrow’s productivity is in part Work Choices. If the Leader of the Opposition wants prosperity tomorrow, he will take the opportunity given to him today of reversing Labor’s opposition to Work Choices, embracing the reforms in Work Choices and, thereby, laying the groundwork for further increases in productivity. 31 31 14:26:00 Kelly, Jackie, MP GK6 Lindsay LP 1 Miss JACKIE KELLY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister confirm that this week Australia’s lowest paid employees are benefiting from the Howard government’s workplace reforms with a $27-a-week pay rise? Are there any alternative views? 31 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 Mr ANDREWS —I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. In answering it, I note that the unemployment rate in Lindsay now stands at 4.2 per cent. When this government was elected—in other words, when the Labor Party was last in government in 1996—the unemployment rate in Lindsay stood at 7.3 per cent. In answer to the honourable member’s question, it is true that this week a million of Australia’s lowest paid award-reliant workers are in receipt of a $27-a-week pay increase. It is the biggest pay increase that has been awarded to the lowest paid workers in Australia. This comes on top of other substantial benefits that have been gained by Australian workers and their families—for example, the 165,000 extra jobs that have been created in Australia since 27 March when Work Choices was introduced, the record low levels of industrial disputation in Australia, the record low retrenchment levels in Australia, the 20-year low of long-term unemployment, and the strong productivity growth. I heard the new Leader of the Opposition ask about productivity growth. The Australian Mines and Minerals Association recently indicated that, because of the workplace relations changes that this government has put in place, there has been a productivity increase in that industry alone of over $6 billion a year. The commercial building and construction industry in Australia has indicated—again as a result of changes made to legislation particularly in relation to the industry—that there has been something like a 20 per cent increase in productivity in this industry. There is a $27-a-week increase to Australia’s lowest paid workers, all as a result of the good economic management of this government. I noted that the new Leader of the Opposition has proffered new ideas and a fresh vision. We may have got what seems like an almost biennial makeover of the leadership of the Australian Labor Party but it is quite clear that, even within a couple of hours of a new Leader of the Opposition, it is the same old unions calling the shots in Australia. Opposition members interjecting— HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr ANDREWS —They laugh, but we had Sharan Burrow, the President of the ACTU, on the phone to Sky News this morning indicating that she had lined up a meeting with the Leader of the Opposition in order to tell him what the policies of the Australian Labor Party will be so far as industrial relations are concerned, and we had Mr Robertson from New South Wales, whose previous claim to fame was threatening the leadership of the previous Leader of the Opposition to ensure that he made a promise to rip up Australian workplace agreements. Here we had the union movement out once again within minutes, almost, of a new Leader of the Opposition, telling him what his policy would be. And what did he say in his first press conference—this first letter from St Kevin to the people of Australia? What did he say? He said: ‘I’m going to implement the policies that have already been put in place.’ So what we have are the same tired, old prescriptions. All that is old is new again. What Ms Burrow and Mr Robertson have said is that, basically, there may be a new leader, but it is the same old Labor. 32 32 14:31:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question again is to the Prime Minister. It relates to his previous answer, in which he referred extensively to his government’s industrial relations legislation. Prime Minister, is it not the case that the Office of the Employment Advocate statistics for the September quarter show that, since the commencement of the government’s industrial relations legislation, the biggest uptake of AWAs has been in the retail trade and hospitality? Prime Minister, is it not also the case that the labour price index for this September quarter shows that, since the commencement of the government’s industrial relations legislation, wages growth in these two areas has been less than the inflation rate? Prime Minister, is it not the case that this is the result of the government’s industrial relations legislation? 32 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —As was my custom with his predecessor, I always check before I accept as gospel what is quoted by the opposition in relation to statistics. But I can confirm that, since Work Choices was introduced, 165,000 new jobs have been created. I can confirm that unemployment has gone to a 30-year low. I can confirm that industrial disputes are lower now than in 1913, a year before World War I broke out. And I can confirm that, when Labor was in office, real wages recessed by 0.2 per cent. They have risen by 16.4 per cent in the time that we have been in government. I am very happy to confirm all of those facts. 32 32 14:32:00 Richardson, Kym, MP E0B Kingston LP 1 Mr RICHARDSON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Would the minister advise the House of new listings on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that will assist Australians suffering from skin cancer, diabetes and hepatitis B? 32 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Mr ABBOTT —I thank the member for Kingston for his question. I can inform him and the House that, last Friday, seven new drugs were listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and 15 drugs had their availability extended. These new listings will help nearly half a million Australians with diseases such as skin cancer, high blood pressure, diabetes and hepatitis B, at a cost of nearly $100 million over the forward estimates period. This latest investment in Australians’ health comes on top of new PBS listings since August costing more than $1 billion, including Herceptin, for early-stage breast cancer. It comes on top of last week’s placing of the HPV vaccine, Gardasil, on the National Immunisation Program at a cost of some $436 million. The government can only afford to place these new drugs on the PBS and the National Immunisation Program because of the rigorous cost-effectiveness tests applied by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The PBAC is what stands between taxpayers and pharmaceutical companies’ ambit claims. I note the member for Lalor’s shrill demand three weeks ago that the government rip up the recommendations of the PBAC. I note that it would have cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars had that demand been acceded to. I simply say that I hope that the next shadow minister for health turns out to be a lot more economically responsible than the next shadow Treasurer is going to turn out to be. 33 Distinguished Visitors 33 14:34:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the Assembly of the Republic of Portugal, accompanied by the Portuguese ambassador. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 33 Questions Without Notice 33 33 14:35:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister reconcile his assertion that the Liberal Party is a party of family values with the fact that, under the government’s industrial relations legislation, an employer can roster an employee to work at any hour of any day during the week and on weekends and then change those rosters without notice? Prime Minister, how is it possible for families now to plan to spend time together on weekends under this new legislation from the so-called family values party? 33 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —I do not think it resonates with the notion of family values to have the dictator of industrial relations policy calling for an example to be presented to her of parents who have lost a child in an industrial accident. That is the sort of— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister has the call. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr HOWARD —Let me go to the specific question raised by the Leader of the Opposition. To quote another, Labour, leader: fairness in the workplace starts with the chance of a job. The greatest gift that this government has given to the families of Australia over the last 10½ years has been the dramatic reduction in the level of unemployment. There is no greater cause of family stress and family breakdown than the loss of economic independence brought about through the loss of a job. I would remind the parliament, and I would remind the Leader of the Opposition, that when we had more than a million people out of work in this country the Labor Party was in office. The great gift that this government has brought to the families of Australia and therefore, according to the definition of the Leader of the Opposition, the family values of this country is to put more Australian families back into the workforce. When families have breadwinners, you have families that hold their heads high and you have families that have a sense of security, hope and independence. When you have families that do not have any breadwinners—and there were close to one million of them back in the early 1990s—you have a collapse of family unity and cohesion and a collapse of family morale. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he really wants a fair go for families: give them the chance of a job, give the chance of a decent wage increase and give them the chance of success if they want to invest their savings in a small business and aspire to a better future. My view about prospering Australian families is in a nation where people are encouraged to aspire to have a go and to better themselves, not in returning Australia to a union-dominated, rule-ridden past. 33 33 14:38:00 Thompson, Cameron, MP 84C Blair LP 1 Mr CAMERON THOMPSON —My question is to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister update the House and all personnel at RAAF Base Amberley about the delivery of a new heavy airlift capability for the Australian Defence Force? 33 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr NELSON —I thank the member for Blair for his question and for being a great champion of RAAF Base Amberley. When Wing Commander Lynda Corbould flew the first of Australia’s four C17s into Canberra this morning, it represented a new era for heavy airlift for the Australian Defence Force. In early March this year the Australian government made the decision to invest $2.1 billion of Australian taxpayers’ money in acquiring from Boeing four C17 Globemasters, and here we are in early December with the first of those aircraft being delivered. We expect to have the fourth aircraft delivered in 2008. To put it into some perspective, these C17s can carry almost four times the payload of the well-known C130 Hercules, which will nonetheless remain the backbone of Australia’s RAAF heavy airlift. For example, if we did have a catastrophe on the west coast of Australia, a C17 could fly from the east coast to the west coast in half the time of a C130 Hercules and carry four times as much equipment. These aircraft, which will service Australia for almost 30 years, will be used extensively not only in Australia in supporting and directly helping Australians but also in our region. If we think of recent deployments in the Solomon Islands, East Timor and other places, it is obvious that Australia and the RAAF need them. Indeed, for our services in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places that are more distant, when you think that a C17 can carry five ASLAVs and 38 personnel, it can carry an M1A1 Abrams heavy tank and a support vehicle and other personnel and it can also carry a Chinook helicopter, a four-wheel drive, a crane and other personnel, it is obvious that our country needs them and it is further evidence that the Australian government is focused not only on Australia’s immediate and near-term defence needs but also on the long-term protection and security of our country and its interests on our borders, in our region and across the world. It also should be seen as further tangible evidence of the importance of a very close relationship between Australia and the United States, because the United States Air Force, the Pentagon and others, particularly Boeing personnel, played an extremely important role in the efficient, on-time, on-cost delivery of the first of these four aircraft. 34 34 14:41:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his answer to my previous question on the relationship between his party’s commitment to family values, so-called, and the content of his industrial relations legislation. Prime Minister, are you saying to the parliament that the legislation that you have introduced on industrial relations will have zero impact on a family’s ability to plan to spend time together on weekends? Prime Minister, is it not a fact that this government’s industrial relations legislation represents a triumph of market values over family values, which is why the Catholic Church has come out and so roundly criticised this legislation from the beginning? 34 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —Mr Speaker, I will tell you what I am saying the policies of this government do in relation to families. The policies of this government have strengthened families. I will get specifically to Work Choices, but the greatest beneficiaries of the government’s economic policies over the last 10½ years have been low- and middle-income Australian families. That has been demonstrated not by Liberal Party analysis; it has been demonstrated by NATSEM and by independent economic analysts. Time and time again analysis has shown that the family tax benefits system has been of enormous, incalculable value to low- and middle-income Australian families, the very people to whom the Leader of the Opposition is referring. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to—in your words—tell the parliament what this government has done for Australian families. This government has also enabled Australian families to enjoy the lowest levels of unemployment in the last 30 years. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about the impact of Work Choices. The impact of Work Choices on family working arrangements is beneficial because it has introduced more flexibility. It has allowed Australian families to more adequately mould their requirements and their experiences around the needs of their workplace. In a spirit of reconciliation, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, who tries to contrast market values and family values, that we should not see these things as working against each other; in fact, we should see these things as working in tandem because, unless you have a strong economy, you do not have strong families. A very successful Labor leader had the courage to get his party to alter its historic relationship with the trade union movement as a precursor to winning office. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: until a leader of the Australian Labor Party has the courage to break the domination of the Labor Party by the Australian trade union movement, it will get further and further out of step with the aspirations of modern Australia. 35 35 14:44:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 1 Mr BROADBENT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Science and Training. Minister, how is Australia’s strong economy benefiting university graduates? What do recent reports say about the benefits of a university education and the fairness of the higher education system in Australia? 35 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I thank the member for McMillan for his question and I note his interest in this matter. With such a buoyant job market and with unemployment at 4.6 per cent across the nation—I note that it is 4.2 per cent in the honourable member’s electorate—there has never been a better time for young people to gain a university qualification. Indeed, young people are taking that option in record numbers. Let me put some facts on the table. Last year over 90 per cent of eligible year 12 students were offered a Commonwealth supported place at a university in their home state. There have been two recent independent reports about the fairness of the student contribution loan scheme—one from the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom and one from La Trobe University. Both reports show that Australia has one of the fairest student contribution loan schemes in the world. There are no up-front fees, 75 per cent of the cost of tuition in a Commonwealth supported place is borne by the taxpayer and repayment is income contingent. The most recent Graduate Career Survey reports that graduates can expect a 100 per cent employment opportunity in a number of disciplines across a number of universities. That same report shows that some graduates’ starting salaries are in excess of $65,000. A second recent report, the Graduate Recruitment Survey, shows that across the board, for all university graduates, the median starting salary is $45,700. Through the strong economic management of the coalition government, young people today have more choices and more opportunities. If young people are looking for a job, whether it is through an apprenticeship, a trade or a university qualification, there has never been a better time for them to invest in their education. 35 35 14:47:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP 0 Mr RUDD —My question is directed again to the Prime Minister. It relates in part to his earlier answer concerning the British Labour Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr David Cameron, leader of the British Conservative party, stated in April this year: It’s become fashionable in certain circles to dismiss the Kyoto agreement. That’s a mistake. Kyoto provides a model for international partnership on climate change, and we should build on it. Is the Prime Minister also aware that Jan Petersen, former foreign minister of Norway and current Deputy Chairman of the International Democratic Union, said in June 2005: The Kyoto Protocol on climate change, although it may have its limitations, is the only international instrument available for addressing the problem reasonably effectively. Given that the Prime Minister is Chairman of the International Democratic Union, why can’t he do what every other self-respecting conservative is doing and ratify Kyoto? 36 Howard, John, MP ZD4 Bennelong LP Prime Minister 1 Mr HOWARD —When I make decisions on climate change and the Kyoto protocol, I do not speak for a particular political philosophy; I speak for my country—and it is in my country’s interests not to go down the European path. What the Leader of the Opposition has done with that question is reveal the Labor Party’s thinking on this issue. It is European based thinking, because he quoted countries whose economies are fundamentally different to Australia’s economy. If I applied a British solution to an Australian problem in relation to climate change, I would be doing great injury to my country. I have absolutely no intention of doing that. 36 36 14:49:00 Baker, Mark, MP DYK Braddon LP 1 Mr BAKER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer. Would the minister outline to the House how the government’s plan to simplify superannuation will provide certainty for Australians in their retirement? 36 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer 1 Mr DUTTON —I thank the member for Braddon very much for his question and acknowledge that he is a great supporter of the superannuation reforms that have been introduced by this government. The government’s superannuation policy will set up the next generation in this nation. It is an economically responsible mechanism that will set up an ageing population and will provide support to generations to come. The co-contribution scheme, which was introduced by this government, allows people across this nation who are earning low incomes to put more money into superannuation. Over the last year, about 7,637 people in the electorate of Braddon have benefited from the co-contribution scheme; that is a great outcome for Australian low-income earners. What we know about the superannuation scheme we have put in place, which was announced in the May budget this year, is that we have extended the co-contribution to self-employed people, and they have not been able to benefit from that policy in the past. We have halved the pension assets test taper rate. We have put in place a mechanism of support for people in small business, who now can put money into their superannuation in a way that in the past they have not been able to. Looking at those opposite, we know that the former shadow Assistant Treasurer, the member for Hunter, has been silent on these issues. We know, of course, that he has been very busy over recent months and it has all come to culmination today. Perhaps it is an opportunity for his successor to look at superannuation—at least for somebody on the Labor front bench to please look at superannuation and to provide some comment, some support for superannuation. What the Australian people face now is a decision between old Labor with a new salesman and this side of the House— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lilley! 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —which is going to set up the economic future of this country. It is a very stark contrast, and it is an opportunity for the Labor Party now at last— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley is warned! 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —to come out and support superannuation. 37 37 14:52:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 Mr KATTER —Mr Speaker, I have a question without notice to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Is the minister aware that environmental legislation, in the light of the explosion of flying fox numbers, has placed in jeopardy much of the fruit and vegetable industry and is forcing people to abandon their homes? Is the minister aware that, in the cases Booth v Bosworth and Booth v Yardley, it was established that this legislation authorises the pimping on and prosecution of ordinary Australians? Finally, is the minister aware that the 2005 report by Queensland Health states that flying foxes carry SARS, hendra disease, salmonella, leptospirosis— Honourable members interjecting— HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —You think it is funny. I do not think it is very funny at all. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Kennedy will come to his question. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —Is the minister aware that six per cent of bats in 2001 tested positive to the deadly lissavirus, indicating apparently that the protection of bats is more important than the lives of Australians? 37 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr TRUSS —I am sure that the Minister for the Environment and Heritage is well aware of the issues raised by the honourable member. Indeed, he has responded on a number of occasions. You will be aware that there are amendments proposed to the EPBC Act, which will make it possible to deal with some of those sorts of issues. It is a difficult exercise to balance the importance of conserving Australia’s native life with enabling farmers to routinely and properly go about their business. The government seeks to achieve that balance and to put in place legislation that is both workable and effective but fair to all Australians. 37 37 14:54:00 Vasta, Ross, MP E0D Bonner LP 1 Mr VASTA —My question is to the Minister for Workforce Participation. Would the minister update the House on how the Australian government’s Job Network is helping even more Australians to move from welfare to work? 37 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP Minister for Workforce Participation 1 Dr STONE —I thank the member for Bonner for his question. Of course, Bonner is now experiencing 4.3 per cent unemployment rates—below the national average. That region, in 1996, experienced of course over seven per cent. It is an extraordinary change. It is a fact that, since we were elected in 1996, the John Howard government has helped create over 1.9 million jobs. Under Labor, of course, unemployment peaked at one million people out of work. Just to give you another example, Job Network has placed more people in jobs in the last six months than Labor achieved under their Working Nation policy in the last six years before 1996. As for debilitating, soul-destroying, long-term unemployment rates, they are now 75 per cent less than when Labor was in office. They peaked under Labor, of course. We have reduced those long-term unemployment rates by 75 per cent. Last week, when the ACTU invited the workers of Australia to go on strike and they walked themselves off into the MCG, if they had looked around at the empty seats they could have done a calculation and said, ‘Labor’s long-term unemployed could have filled the MCG three times over and there would still have been enough long-term unemployed to fill the WACA.’ For parents on pensions in the last 12 months there has been a 40 per cent increase in employment rates. As the PM said a short time ago, when parents on pensions get employment, so do their children. We have managed to break the intergenerational cycles of poverty, when parents on pensions also saw their kids enter unemployment year after year. We have helped kids get jobs. Labor left 600,000 families without a breadwinner. Welfare to Work policies have helped the disabled, the mature aged, Indigenous people, youth and prisoners into work at rates we have never seen before in Australia. They have been extraordinarily successful. But I am asked what the alternatives are. It is very important to know what the alternatives are for the unemployed who are left in Australia. Labor gave us Working Nation. What was the success rate of Working Nation? Four per cent—four per cent outcomes under Working Nation. And, for each one of those placements, the cost was 10 per cent more than under our Welfare to Work initiatives. Under Working Nation, they put people into mickey mouse courses that disguised the unemployment rate somewhat but which left people unskilled and not job ready. That was significant because, of course, under Labor, school retention rates plummeted, youth unemployment peaked and we lost a generation of tradespeople. Opposition members interjecting— EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr STONE —It was appalling—school retention down six per cent. Labor recently put out a thing they have called the Blueprint for Prosperity. This was just last week. Buried within the prosperity blueprint we have the shadow of an employment strategy. Is this a clear, bold enunciation of policy? Is it a fork in the road? Is it a forklift or a pitchfork? Is there a fork in it? No, no forks. In fact, we have, in the blueprint for employment under Labor, a reprint of Working Nation—the failed, appalling Working Nation which the OECD independently evaluated and whose impact, it said, was ‘strongly negative’. So it is very unfortunate that we are no better off under Labor’s blueprint, it would seem. Those who are unemployed, of course, are in a position in Australia now where they can look forward to work and they can enjoy the prosperity of this nation, and our businesses can get on and grow and prosper. ZD4 Howard, John, MP Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 38 Privilege 38 14:59:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 1 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Last Friday a staff member of mine received a message from a journalist to say that this journalist had received a copy of the recommendations of the report which was under consideration by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Human Services. I consulted the Clerk on the matter. I called the editor of the Age, the newspaper concerned, and advised that if the article were printed it would indeed be a contempt of the House. I advised that I would confirm that advice in writing, which I did. The matter was nonetheless printed in the Sunday Age on Sunday. It was similarly printed in the Sun-Herald in Sydney. Mr Speaker, this is a matter of considerable concern. I understand that another committee of the House also had something similar occur to it. I intend to take this matter back to the committee to discuss with the committee what action it may decide needs to be taken and to report to you on the deliberations of the committee. 39 15:00:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Mackellar for bringing that to the attention of the House. I note that she proposes to take a course of action. We will await any further developments that she wishes to bring back to the House. 39 Petitions 10000 The Clerk The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers: LL6 Mr Baldwin 150 39 To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: David Kilgour, a former MP and Secretary of State for Asia Pacific of Canada, and international human rights lawyer Mr. David Matas initiated an independent investigation into the allegations of organ harvesting from live victims in China. The report released on 6 July 2006 has come to the conclusion that Chinese officials have been committing crimes against humanity; that the authorities have been harvesting vital organs from thousands of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners and killing them in the process. “Their vital organs, including hearts, Kidneys, livers and corneas, were virtually simultaneously seized involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries.”—Pg. 44 of the report. On August 2006 both the Australian Government and Opposition agreed to ask the Chinese communist party to allow an independent investigation into the forced organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China. YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE REQUEST THE HOUSE TO INITIATE A RESOLUTION TO: Australian Government to urge the CCP to immediately release all Falun Gong practitioners; and to give full access without impediment to the Coalition to Investigate Persecution of Falun Gong in China (CIPFG) to conduct an independent investigation into all jails, 610 Offices, labour camps, detention centre, and related hospitals in China. Australian Government to initiate a Senate Committee Inquiry into the allegation of Organ Harvesting; Australian Government to inform and discourage Australian citizens from travelling to China for organ transplants; and prevent companies, institutions and individuals providing goods and services and training to China’s organ transplant programmes; until such time as the CIPFG is satisfied that no organs used have been taken by force against the will of the donor. 150 LL6 Mr Baldwin Mr Baldwin (from 150 citizens) CK6 Mr Hardgrave 1715 39 To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: A Canadian report released on 6 July 2006 came to the conclusion that China has been committing crimes against humanity, that the authorities have been harvesting vital organs from thousands of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners and killing them in the process. Mr David Kilgour, a former Canadian MP and Secretary of State for Asia Pacific, and international human rights lawyer Mr David Matas initiated an independent investigation into the allegations of organ harvesting from live victims. “We have concluded that the government of China and its agencies in numerous parts of the country, in particular hospitals but also detention centres and ‘people’s courts’, since 1999 have put to death a large but unknown number of Falun Gong prisoners of conscience. Their vital organs, including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas, were virtually simultaneously seized involuntarily for sale at high prices, sometimes to foreigners, who normally face long waits for voluntary donations of such organs in their home countries.”—Pg. 44 of the report. YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE REQUEST THE HOUSE TO INITIATE A RESOLUTION TO: Urge the CCP to unconditionally release all Falun Gong practitioners and give full access to jails, labour camps, detention centres and related hospitals for the Coalition to Investigate Persecution of Falun Gong in China (CIPFG) and/or the UN to conduct independent investigations; Establish a Senate Committee Inquiry into the allegation of Organ Harvesting; Discourage Australian citizens from travelling to China for organ transplants; and prevent companies, institutions and individuals providing goods and services and training to China’s organ transplant programs until such time as it is beyond reasonable doubt that no organs used have been harvested against the will of the donor. 1715 CK6 Mr Hardgrave Mr Hardgrave (from 1,715 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 9 40 Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House, the long dental waiting lists and under funding of our public dental system. Your Petitioners therefore ask the House to: Re-introduce the Commonwealth Dental Scheme and restore funding to public dental health, Reduce waiting times for public dental health services, and Train more public dentists. 9 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 9 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 68 40 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. We the undersigned request that the Government take action to improve our health system by reintroducing the Commonwealth Dental Scheme.. The axing of the Commonwealth Dental Scheme was a direct result of a Howard Government decision and has caused great hardship to many local residents on low incomes particularly the elderly and those with young children. Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House do everything in their power to reintroduce the Commonwealth Dental Scheme as a matter of urgency. 68 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 68 citizens) 83E Mr Ripoll 53 40 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Federal Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the Federal House of Representatives the need for Commonwealth funding for public dental services throughout the state of Queensland and particularly, in the electorate of Pumicestone Your petitioners therefore request the Federal House of Representatives to consider the re-introduction of the Commonwealth Dental Health funding for public dental services (which was abolished by the Howard Government in 1996) to alleviate the long waiting lists patients currently face. 53 83E Mr Ripoll Mr Ripoll (from 53 citizens) RH4 Mr Kerr 26 40 Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House its objection to a nuclear reactor or high level nuclear waste dump being built in our area. Your petitioners therefore request the House to reject any nuclear reactors or high level nuclear waste dumps being built in our community. 26 RH4 Mr Kerr Mr Kerr (from 26 citizens) 83E Mr Ripoll 26 40 Petition to the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House its objection to a nuclear reactor or high level nuclear waste dump being built in our area. Your petitioners therefore request the House to reject any nuclear reactors or high level nuclear waste dumps being built in the Wide Bay region. 26 83E Mr Ripoll Mr Ripoll (from 26 citizens) 009CW Ms Corcoran 41 41 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament to oppose the sale of Medibank Private: This petition of certain citizens of Australia registers its protest to the sale of Medibank Private and calls on the House to oppose the sale of Medibank Private. 41 009CW Ms Corcoran Ms Corcoran (from 41 citizens) 83R Mr Edwards 225 41 To The Honourable The Speaker And Members Of The House Of Representatives Assembled In Parliament The petition of certain citizens of Australian draws the attention of the House the fact that there is currently no enforceable absolute requirement that food produced or grown overseas be labelled as to its country of origin. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to act to ensure that consumers are able to identify the country of origin of the food they buy by requiring that imported food be adequately and legibly labelled with the name of the country in which it was grown or produced. 225 83R Mr Edwards Mr Edwards (from 225 citizens) 83R Mr Edwards 20 41 To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. This petition of citizens of Australia calls on the Parliament to urge Government members to: Table all environmental evidence and other studies supporting the proposal to build a nuclear reactor in Western Australia; Identify which bodies in Western Australia have been consulted over such a proposal; Advise on what consultation has taken place with the community in Western Australia over the proposal; Identify all the sites in Western Australia under consideration for the construction of this nuclear reactor; and Advise what safeguards will be put in place to prevent terrorist attacks against nuclear facilities in Western Australia. 20 83R Mr Edwards Mr Edwards (from 20 citizens) 8K6 Mr Fitzgibbon 2148 41 To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the Howard Government’s failure to provide urgent funding for the construction of the F3 Link Road on the New England Highway between Seahampton and Branxton. We the undersigned therefore request the House to call on the Howard Government to; Fast-track the construction of the F3 Link Road on the New England Highway between Seahampton and Branxton. Provide urgent funds to upgrade the New England Highway to a level appropriate given its ever increasing traffic volumes. 2148 8K6 Mr Fitzgibbon Mr Fitzgibbon (from 2,148 citizens) 83N Ms Hall 12 41 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that free mammograms are not accessible by breast cancer survivors despite the increased risk of breast cancer. Access to free mammograms is also being denied to women over 70 years of age in some parts of Australia. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that mammograms are free to all women in Australia regardless of age or medical history. 12 83N Ms Hall Ms Hall (from 12 citizens) RH4 Mr Kerr 139 42 To the Honourable Speaker of the House and Members of the House assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that Australian employees are worse off as a result of the Howard Government’s changes to the industrial relations system. The petitioners call upon the Howard Government to adopt a plan to produce a fair industrial relations system based on fairness and the fundamental principles of minimum standards, wages and conditions; safety nets; an independent umpire; the right to associate; and the right to collectively bargain. The petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure that the Howard Government delivers: Proper rights for Australian workers who are unfairly dismissed. A strong safety net of minimum awards and conditions. An independent umpire to ensure fair wages and conditions, and to settle disputes. The right for employees to bargain collectively for decent wages and condition: The right for workers to reject individual contracts which cut pay and conditions, and undermine collective bargaining and union representation. The right to join a union and be represented by a union. 139 RH4 Mr Kerr Mr Kerr (from 139 citizens) 83D Mr Murphy 3523 42 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House: Despite making a $1.47 billion profit in just 6 months, nearly 500 jobs and the personal details of thousands of Australian bank customers could be sent offshore if Westpac outsources work from Concord to India - following a `review’ of the Transactions and Unsecured Lending division. Many of the 485 staff have worked for Westpac all their working lives, some for as many as thirty years. Critical information like bank details, licence numbers, and passport details could be accessed in potentially insecure environments overseas, where information controls are much weaker than in Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray the House to call on the federal government to amend legislation to ensure that critical data on Australians may only be accessed,  processed, stored and retained by corporate offices and officers located in Australia 3523 83D Mr Murphy Mr Murphy (from 3,523 citizens) WU5 Mr Gavan O’Connor 258 42 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in this assembled Parliament. We, the undersigned citizens of Geelong, Victoria, Australia do petition Parliament, urging immediate steps be taken to introduce Solar Power Australia wide. We, the Petitioners concur and support the statement made in Tony Jones’ ABC “Lateline” on Wednesday 25th 2006 that Solar Power can service all of Australia’s home and industrial requirements for approximately the $13 billion quoted. We urgently petition the Parliament to put in place the necessary legislation and funding to commence the necessary infrastructure to build and commence the needed R & D immediately. Funding can be drawn from the $15 billion budget surplus advertised by the government for this year. We, the Petitioners, wish to bring to the attention of Parliament that: With Global warming the matter needs to be treated as a high priority. Global warming can expect to cause flooding and inundation of the coastal low-lying areas of our capital and coastal cities, leading to potential loss of life and high costs and losses to the economy of Australia. There is ample evidence from experience that nuclear generation is not the answer as they create more dangerous problems with leakages into the ground soils, polluting our precious aquifers and artesian and sub-artesian water supplies. All manmade mechanical constructs or whatever name you may wish to call, them are subject to mechanical breakdowns, leakages from pipelines, rogue emissions from pipe glands, etc. Human error will also be a factor in the assessment of danger. There are already enough nuclear plants to provide examples of the danger. We ask Parliament where does it propose to bury, store our nuclear waste as it is likely to contaminate our grounds water supplies as explained in paragraph 2. Therefore, we, the Petitioners respectfully ask Parliament seriously consider our Petition. 258 WU5 Mr Gavan O’Connor Mr Gavan O’Connor (from 258 citizens) 83M Ms Plibersek 13 43 To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain Citizens of Australia originally from Latvia draws to the attention of the House the following: Since the end of the Second World War, many Latvians have emigrated to Australia permanently and have settled here becoming Australian Citizens and raising their families. However, for many decades, we Latvians have sought to receive our Pension Entitlements from our country of origin Latvia, without success. Many of us had worked for periods of between 15 and 35 years whilst in Latvia. To the present all our efforts on behalf of our community through The Government of Latvia’s Diplomatic representative here has been unsuccessful. We are aware that other Latvians residing in the United States of America, Germany and other countries receive their pension entitlements. Your petitioners therefore request the House, to seek whatever can be undertaken within both Governmental and Diplomatic avenues to raise these issues with the Latvian Government counterparts. This is sought to make the anomaly that prevails addressed and justified entitlements available to those whom have given a majority of their working life to Latvia in the recent past. It is with this request that we seek a just and equitable resolution to this matter. 13 83M Ms Plibersek Ms Plibersek (from 13 citizens) 83E Mr Ripoll 65 43 To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: The petition of residents of Queensland draws to the attention of the House the rising cost of petrol in Australia and the impact this is having on our Community. Your petitioners ask the House to: Call on Treasurer Costello to start putting 100% of money received from fuel taxes back into Australian transport; Call on Treasurer Costello to immediately ask the ACCC to formally investigate skyrocketing petrol prices in Australia; Strengthen the Trade Practices Act—especially s46—to prevent the abuse of market power and other unfair practices which drive out competition; Declare petrol prices under the prices surveillance provisions for monitoring purposes and have the ACCC report 6 monthly on movements—particularly in regional Australia; Petitioners also note that the Prime Minister has done nothing to stop the massive increase in petrol costs under his government, and has expressed no interest or concern about the impact this has on the community. 65 83E Mr Ripoll Mr Ripoll (from 65 citizens) 83E Mr Ripoll 12 44 To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Federal Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the Federal House of Representatives to the outrage felt by Sunshine Coast residents and visitors at the ridiculous suggestion by Prime Minister John Howard that a nuclear power plant be built on the Sunshine Coast. A nuclear power plant would devastate the Sunshine Coast’s reputation as a family destination and the petitioners request the Federal House of Representatives to consider taking this proposal off the agenda. The community will never accept this proposal — The Sunshine Coast does not want a nuclear power plant! 12 83E Mr Ripoll Mr Ripoll (from 12 citizens) 83E Mr Ripoll 16 44 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Federal Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Federal House of Representatives to the need for further Commonwealth funding for university places throughout the state of Queensland to train doctors. Your petitioners therefore request the Federal House of Representatives to consider providing more university places to train Doctors within Queensland to alleviate problems within the health system due to the current doctor shortage. Petitioners ask that the original request for the allocation of 325 university places for doctors in Queensland be approved as the 50 new places announced by the Prime Minister is not sufficient for our growing population and subsequent demands on the health system. 16 83E Mr Ripoll Mr Ripoll (from 16 citizens) 83E Mr Ripoll 24 44 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament: The petition of concerned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the fact that Carers of disabled veterans take care of their veteran 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, every week of the year. For their dedicated work, these carers receive the sum of $6.76 per day Carers’ Allowance. As a consequence of the heavy work involved in the caring process, Carers find themselves suffering physical disabilities and depression and often need similar care to that which they are giving to disabled veterans. Your petitioners therefore request the House to: Administer and pay Carers’ Allowance to Carers of Veterans through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Provide a health programme for carers of Veterans to cover all aspects of their well being. Provide transport assistance to veteran’s Carers for their return trip home when the veteran is hospitalised and does not return with them. Provide relief from parking fees for Carers when visiting hospitalised veteran. Subsidize accommodation to enable the carers to stay nearby the veteran if their veteran is hospitalized away from their home town. Increase the amount of respite available to Carers of disabled veterans. Remove the abolition of payment of the Carer’s Allowance which ceases after a period of six weeks if the Carer’s veteran is required to stay in care outside of his home. 24 83E Mr Ripoll Mr Ripoll (from 24 citizens) 0V5 Mr Slipper 107 44 To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens and residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that: Witnesses, including an investigative journalist, a neurosurgeon’s wife and a veteran military doctor, have revealed that Falun Gong practitioners are being held in concentration camps in China where they are routinely subject to the forced removals of their organs which are then sold for transplants. The military doctor claims to know of at least 36 such camps. After organ removal, the bodies are quickly cremated to destroy all evidence. YOUR PETITIONERS THEREFORE REQUEST THE HOUSE TO INITIATE A RESOLUTION TO: Call for the Australian Government to fully support the International Coalition to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (CIPFG), and demand that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) immediately open the doors of all concentration camps, forced labour camps, hospitals, prisons and detention centres throughout the People’s Republic of China in order to allow independent teams to investigate the charges of illegal detention, torture and live organ removal for transplants. Demand that the CCP regime release all detained Falun Gong practitioners immediately. 107 0V5 Mr Slipper Mr Slipper (from 107 citizens) ZT4 Mr Somlyay 537 45 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia Draws to the attention of the House The unfair classification of independent sewing contractors working within the Clothing and textile industry Your petitioners therefore request the House Review the Clothing Trades Award 1999 and amend the said award so that an individual having registered a business with the intent to operate as independent contractor within the clothing and textile industry has the same right as any other independent contractor in any other industry to operate their business as a sole trader and therefore an independent contractor and not as an outworker or pseudo employee as defined under the Clothing Trades Award. 537 ZT4 Mr Somlyay Mr Somlyay (from 537 citizens) Petitions received. 45 Delegation Reports 45 45 15:04:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 1 0 Mrs MOYLAN —I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 115th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, held in Geneva from 16 to 19 October 2006, and to Portugal from 20 to 25 October 2006. In doing so, may I say that it was an excellent delegation, and I place on the record my appreciation of the work and contribution of the deputy leader, the member for Cowan. Not only is he an excellent travelling companion—as is his wife, Noelene—but also he is an outstanding ambassador for this parliament and for Australia. I also commend the member for Riverina, Mrs Kay Hull, and Senator Gavin Marshall for the significant contributions they made to the work of the delegation. I know the member for Cowan will be speaking at greater length specifically on our visit to Portugal, but I thought it was appropriate that the report is being tabled today as we have a delegation from Portugal visiting the House—the Portuguese parliamentary committee on foreign affairs—led very ably by Dr Arnaud. As we had the pleasure of meeting the foreign affairs committee during our work in Portugal, I thought it appropriate to make a few comments. The committee met over 30 members of the 230-member Assembly of the Republic of Portugal and gained a greater appreciation of the key social, economic and political issues of Portugal, including education, health, drug control and, of course, foreign affairs. The visit provided an excellent opportunity for us to exchange views on the issues of mutual interest—in particular, on East Timor. I understand the delegation from Portugal will be flying to Dili to consider some of the matters up there. We have a very important partnership with Portugal to continue to work to help rebuild East Timor and indeed to help to strengthen their democratic system of government. Australia welcomed the deployment of a 120-member contingent of the National Republican Guard as Portugal’s contribution to helping maintain law and order in East Timor and noted that both countries were working cooperatively and effectively to this end. The delegation noted the significant progress that has been made in restoring stability in East Timor but also noted that the security and political situation will continue to be challenging in the lead-up to the 2007 elections and beyond. This means that continued international support for East Timor is critical. The delegation concluded that it would be useful for ministers, parliamentarians and officials from Portugal and Australia to talk further about the collaboration in and coordination of bilateral aid programs in East Timor and to explore ways of better defining areas of specialisation. So we are particularly pleased to welcome the Portuguese delegation to the Australian parliament, and we wish them well on their ongoing journey to East Timor. Before I move on to the work of the IPU, I would like to express the delegation’s thanks to Mr Luke Williams, the Australian ambassador to Portugal, and to his staff at the Australian embassy in Portugal. The program of visits and meetings was well focused and comprehensive and allowed the delegation to gain a real appreciation of Portugal, its history and its culture as well as current issues. We were enchanted and delighted with the warm reception we received from the Portuguese parliament and the Portuguese people. I also thank the Portuguese ambassador to Australia, who assisted us in preparing for this visit. There is a full account in the report on the IPU. I want to make clear that there is a typing mistake in there. In my speech to the IPU, it refers to the ‘nonproliferation of nuclear weapons’. It should have read ‘the proliferation’—that is, that we discourage the proliferation, not the nonproliferation, of nuclear weapons. I want to make that clear. This delegation was an excellent delegation. I believe we have continued to lift the profile of Australian delegations to the IPU assemblies, and a great contribution was made by all members of the Australian delegation to the work of the 115th assembly. Once again, I thank all of the staff, including Mr Neil Bessell, our secretary, who assisted us in preparing for those meetings. Members were also grateful to the staff of DFAT, who also assisted us in our preparation. Our sincere thanks go to all of the staff in Australia’s embassy in Portugal. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired) 46 15:10:00 Edwards, Graham, MP 83R Cowan ALP 0 0 Mr EDWARDS —From the outset, I want to acknowledge the work of the leader of the parliamentary delegation to the 115th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly held in Geneva and to Portugal, Judi Moylan, and compliment her on a very professional job. Her leadership and personality helped make this trip a very enjoyable one. It was great to be part of a good team, and I feel that, under her leadership, we really did fly the Australian flag with pride, and we made sure that people knew where we were from as well. I also want to acknowledge the work of Kay Hull and Senator Gavin Marshall during the IPU and, of course, during our bilateral visit to Portugal. For me, the IPU was an eye-opener, and, as a stranger to the process, I greatly relied on the advice and direction of delegation secretary Neil ‘Fardo’ Bessell, who is a very valuable officer to have about. His experience was of great value to the delegation. It was very interesting to be involved in a forum which included full, open and frank debate on various issues with speakers from countries like Israel, Lebanon and Palestine pitted against each other. It was also of interest to watch the politics of the Twelve Plus Group. As you know, Mr Speaker, Australia is a member of Twelve Plus as well as a member of the Asia-Pacific Group. But I must say I was absolutely astounded by the anti-American sentiment which was often expressed, and expressed with some passion and some strength, by some delegates. It is important for the future of the IPU and for the decision-making process that the United States gets involved with the IPU again. I did put forward a motion on the banning of cluster bombs for discussion at the next IPU, but this motion was not supported. I was disappointed that it did not get up, but I can understand why. However, on a more positive note, I was asked to join the editorial board that was recently constituted to oversee the drafting of a new handbook for the parliamentarians on the forthcoming International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities. It is hoped to have that work finished and published in time for the 116th IPU assembly in spring 2007. The bilateral visit was to Portugal, and I am absolutely delighted to have had the opportunity to welcome the delegates here today from Portugal. It is tremendous that, so soon after our trip, they decided to visit Australia to see what it was that we were so proud of. I also want to acknowledge the great work done by our post in Portugal and, in particular, to acknowledge and thank our ambassador, Luke Williams, for the very professional job he and his staff do and for their support of our visit. There are many hundreds of people of Portuguese origin living in WA. Many of them are from the island of Madeira, and they make a great contribution to our state and to Australia. Indeed, many of them have involved themselves in the fishing industry. For many of them, the first time they ever picked up a fishing line was when they came to Australia. The Portuguese people were very warm in their hospitality, and, for me, a highlight of our trip to Portugal was a visit to Porto, which is couple of hours drive north. It was a very interesting drive, and Porto is a very fascinating part of Portugal. For me, there was a great resemblance between Porto and the old port area of Sydney, around The Rocks, and the old port area of Fremantle, where so many of the Portuguese people went. We were also very interested to meet with officials from the ministry of fisheries. Portugal is the third highest per capita consumer of fish and has an overall deficit in fish trade. It consumes over €1 billion worth of fish products, its own catch supplying about two per cent of consumption—there ought to be a market there for Australia. In conclusion, I once again congratulate Judi Moylan and other members of the delegation. It was a delight to be a member of that delegation, and we hope that we represented our country well. 47 Private Members' Business 47 47 15:15:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —I move: That the House: notes the maturing relationship between Vietnam and Australia, the high-level contacts between Prime Ministers, Australia’s development cooperation program of approximately $81 million per year and the strong people-to-people links; notes continuing international concern about human rights issues in Vietnam, including gaoling, administrative detention and harassment of human rights activists for their advocacy of democracy and religious freedom; notes the importance of addressing the cases of individuals such as The Most Venerable Thich Quang Do and Thich Huyen Quang, Hoa Hao Elder Mr Le Quang Liem, Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh, Dr Pham Hong Son, journalists Nguyen Khac Toan and Hguyen Vu Binh and many ethnic Montagnard people such as Siu Boch, A Brih and Y Tim Bya; calls on the Vietnamese Government to observe its international obligations on human rights, including the provision of free and fair elections; and notes the Australian Government’s active support for, and promotion of, democratic freedoms and human rights in Vietnam, including through the annual human rights dialogue and other cooperation programs, and encourages the Government to continue these efforts. The motion I have moved notes the maturing relationship between Australia and Vietnam and the high-level contacts we have had but also notes the international concern regarding human rights in Vietnam and mentions the importance of addressing individual cases in line with the international understanding of human rights and the treatment of individuals. It calls on the Vietnamese government to observe certain international obligations and notes the Australian government’s support for the improvement in governance and the promotion of democratic freedoms and human rights in Vietnam. It is 30 years since the first Vietnamese refugees arrived in Australia, and now 177,000 Vietnamese people make a wonderful contribution to Australia. Over those 30 years, the Soviet Union has changed; it has become democratic, broken up and taken a new form. China is changing quickly. This motion is about the slowness of change in Vietnam. Whilst there is progress, it is not fast enough. Although there have been the changes I have mentioned, there need to be more. The warm relationship between Vietnam and Australia is a maturing relationship, as witnessed by the Prime Minister’s visit to Vietnam and Prime Minister Khai’s visit to Australia. This motion also relates to Australia’s aid program, the development cooperation between Australia and Vietnam of $81 million per annum, and the consistent economic growth and entry into the World Trade Organisation by Vietnam. But this motion relates very strongly to the failure of Vietnam in so many ways to pick up some of the basic tenets of an open and free democracy. The statement by what has come to be known as Bloc 8406, made on 8 April 2006, was a statement made by 118 democracy activists within Vietnam. What those activists spoke about was the need for change in Vietnam. They were brave and courageous people to make this public statement. The four basic tenets that this group of 118 freedom-loving individuals based their statement on were, firstly, the need for freedom of information and opinion, as defined by the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; secondly, freedom to assemble, form associations, political parties, vote and stand for elected offices; thirdly, freedom to participate in independent labour unions and the right to legitimate strikes; and, fourthly, freedom of religion, as defined by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In my motion are the names of a number of leading Buddhists who have been imprisoned or confined in movement by the Vietnamese regime. The Reporters Without Borders worldwide press freedom index released on 23 October this year says that, out of the 168 countries surveyed, Vietnam ranks within the bottom 20 for the basic freedoms of religion, expression and association. It is with sadness that I report that the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do, leader of the Unified Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation, who has been awarded an important international prize for human rights, was so concerned for his own safety that he was not prepared to leave Vietnam in case he was never allowed back there to lead his people. That is a tragic circumstance by anybody’s standards. In closing these brief remarks, I refer to a statement by Dr Tien Nguyen, the federal president of the Vietnamese Community of Australia, who said, ‘We applaud our PM’s firm stand regarding anti-corruption measures and good governance required of our aid recipients’. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? 49 15:20:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP 0 0 Mr BOWEN —I second the motion. I second it because I welcome any opportunity to make a contribution to the case for human rights in Vietnam. I do not second it without reservation—I support a motion more strongly worded—but I do welcome the opportunity provided by the honourable member for Mitchell to put on record our support for improved human rights in Vietnam. It is on that basis that I second the motion. There are 83 million people living in Vietnam—83 million people who do not have the basic rights that the rest of us have and who deserve better. As the honourable member for Mitchell referred to, on 8 April this year, 118 Vietnamese citizens signed the 2006 democracy manifesto. Now over 1,000 Vietnamese citizens have signed that manifesto. These brave individuals deserve to be recognised in this House. It is easy for us to raise human rights from the privilege of this House; it is courageous for them to do so. I have had the privilege of attending a number of functions—as, I think, has the honourable member for Fowler—where there have been live radio crosses to some of those individuals who have signed the manifesto, and it has been an honour and a privilege to be present to hear them directly. This movement is redolent of charter 77 of the solidarity of movements that eventually brought democracy to their countries. On Wednesday this week members and senators will have the opportunity to support an open letter expressing support for the manifesto for democracy and calling on the Vietnamese government to allow for calls for democracy without persecution. A similar letter was recently circulated through the United States Congress and 50 congressmen and senators signed that open letter. I encourage all members and senators to come at 11 o’clock to the ceremony, where we are invited on a bipartisan basis to sign that open letter. The recent APEC summit was an opportunity to highlight the case for human rights in Vietnam. The Prime Minister indicated to the Vietnamese community in Australia that he would raise the issue of human rights during his visit. I am not sure if he did, but I accept that he indicated that he would. It is a case which needs to be highlighted. Transparency International has rated the Vietnamese government as 102nd out of the 146 nations and rated it amongst the four worst in Asia in relation to corruption. As the honourable member for Mitchell referred to, Reporters Without Borders has rated Vietnam as one of the worst nations in the world for transparency and freedom of speech. Some signatories to Bloc 8406 have been imprisoned, placed under house arrest or had their movement monitored, as others have. For example, there is the case of Nguyen Vu Binh, who is serving a seven-year sentence after submitting written evidence to the United States Congress about breaches of human rights. This is somebody serving seven years in prison for reporting to the Congress of the United States—that is, of course, outrageous. The United States House Committee on International Relations wrote in its most recent report: The government continued to pressure, harass, and imprison persons for the peaceful expression of dissenting religious and political views. In recent years, Vietnam has embraced economic reform, but economic reform without political reform is not enough. On every test, Vietnam fails—lack of freedom of speech, lack of freedom of religion, lack of freedom of association, lack of freedom of assembly and lack of freedom of political expression. The United States House of Representatives committee which I referred to identified 17 separate areas of concern in relation to human rights in Vietnam. This motion calls on the Australian government to continue its efforts to promote human rights in Vietnam, and of course we should. But we should also increase our efforts. We as a parliament must take every opportunity to express to those brave individuals who have signed the manifesto and to the other 83 million Vietnamese citizens—and, of course, to the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese residents in Australia—that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the cause of democracy in Vietnam and that we will not rest until we see democracy come to Vietnam, as we have seen it come and assisted it to come to nations such as South Africa and those in eastern Europe. (Time expired) 50 15:25:00 Bartlett, Kerry, MP 0K6 Macquarie LP 1 0 Mr BARTLETT —Australia has a warm and growing relationship with Vietnam which is yielding increasing benefits to both countries. High-level contacts between both nations’ leaders are increasing, evidenced most recently by Prime Minister John Howard’s visit to Vietnam and by the visits to Australia by Vietnamese Prime Minister Khai in May 2005 and Vice President Hoa in October this year. Vietnam is also becoming a valuable partner of Australia both bilaterally and within the region in areas such as combating narcotics and other transnational crime and fighting terrorism. Australia’s development cooperation program of approximately $81 million a year is making a real contribution to improving life for many Vietnamese, particularly the poor in struggling rural areas. We have also been pleased to see some encouraging signs of Vietnam’s willingness to listen to Australia’s concerns about human rights issues. However, sadly, the people of Vietnam do not enjoy the open and robust democratic processes, the liberty, the freedom of speech and belief, and the impartial rule of law that many countries take for granted. Thus I am very pleased to support this motion moved by the member for Mitchell. While in 1982 Vietnam ratified the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, unfortunately Vietnam’s practices do not live up to this commitment. Article 18.1 of that convention affirms: Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. Article 19.2 affirms: Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. Freedom of religion and belief are fundamental to our human individuality. The exercise of these rights strengthens a community and needs to be guaranteed by government. Yet, despite its ratification of this convention, the totalitarian Vietnamese state is still intolerant of criticism and severely curtails the religious freedoms affirmed in that convention. Human Rights Watch, in its May 2006 report, details cases of the Vietnamese government’s harassment of citizens with dissident views. As it reports: ... the one party state, dominated by the Vietnamese Communist Party, is intolerant of criticism. Media, political parties, religious organizations and labour unions are not allowed to exist without official sanction and oversight ... Internal dissidents have been imprisoned on charges of espionage, as have activists calling for democracy. Religious leaders and their families have been harassed, including Catholic priests and Buddhist monks. The Asian Times reported in July this year police officials storming and demolishing a Mennonite church and arresting the pastor and a number of his congregation. The Australian government and people are strongly committed to the wellbeing of Vietnam. We have shown that through our ongoing and increasing economic assistance. Yet human rights are an essential part of this wellbeing. It is important that fundamental human rights are respected; accordingly, I urge the Vietnamese government to uphold the principles it endorsed when it ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 51 15:30:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 0 0 Mrs IRWIN —I am pleased to support the motion on Vietnam moved by the member for Mitchell. Like all the speakers on this side of the House in this debate, I have the privilege to represent a large community of people of Vietnamese origin in my electorate of Fowler. In my regular contact with various leading members of that community and ordinary individuals, I have come to know of their concerns for the people of their former homeland. When I speak to young Vietnamese Australians, they often express a kind of guilt that they live in a free and democratic country like Australia, while their relatives and friends are subjected to human rights abuses in Vietnam. The motion notes a number of cases of religious leaders and journalists who have been detained or who have been subjected to severe restrictions in their movements and other forms of harassment. Many of these cases have been raised in this parliament by me and other members before but, as private members of this parliament, our concerns can be dismissed by the government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, just as that government can dismiss the voices of human rights advocates in Vietnam. But our voices today are directed to the Australian government and its role in advocating for human rights and democracy in Vietnam. I know that many members of the Vietnamese community in Australia were greatly disappointed that the Prime Minister did not make use of the opportunity of his recent visit to raise with the government of Vietnam the serious concerns for human rights in that country. While the United States President George Bush and the Prime Minister of Canada spoke out on human rights issues, Australia’s Prime Minister did not raise these issues publicly. This came as a great disappointment to the Vietnamese community of Australia, which had raised its concerns with the Prime Minister at a meeting earlier in November here at Parliament House. At that meeting the Prime Minister told the Vietnamese community in Australia that he would raise Australia’s concerns about human rights abuses during his visit to Vietnam for the APEC conference. As this motion points out, Australia participates in an annual human rights dialogue with Vietnam. The Prime Minister’s failure to raise human rights issues during his visit to Vietnam for APEC sends a clear message to the government of Vietnam that Australia is not serious about human rights in Vietnam. While Australia’s Prime Minister enjoyed the hospitality of his Vietnamese hosts, journalists like Nguyen Khac Toan suffered the hospitality of B14 prison camp in Hang Dong Province. Nguyen Khac Toan, a veteran of the North Vietnamese Army, was imprisoned for 12 years in 2002 for organising petitions by retired military officers calling for democracy, social equality and an end to corruption. Another political prisoner suffering the hospitality of B14 prison camp is Dr Pham Hong Son, who was detained in 2003 after he distributed an article he titled, ‘Hopeful Signs for Democracy in Vietnam’. I wonder if the Prime Minister saw any hopeful signs for democracy in Vietnam during his visit. Perhaps while enjoying the sights of the largest Buddha in Vietnam our Prime Minister might have spared a thought for the Most Venerable Thich Quang Do. As a leader of the Unified Buddhist Church of Vietnam, Thich Quang Do is no stranger to Vietnam’s prisons. He last served a sentence from 1995 to 1998 for the so-called offences of ‘sabotaging government policies’ and ‘damaging the interests of the state’. Since 2001 he has been under house arrest. A similar situation is suffered by Pastor Nguyen Cong Chinh, Vice President of the Mennonite Church. The Prime Minister appears to have little concern for the fate of those brave souls who have spoken out in support of human rights in Vietnam. While the government of Vietnam tries to silence these advocates of democracy and human rights, Australia’s Prime Minister remains silent. Australia’s relationship with Vietnam should mature. Just as in our relationship with all countries we should not turn a blind eye to human rights abuses simply to achieve trade or other benefits from our relationship, so it should be in our relationship with Vietnam. SD4 Cadman, Alan, MP Mr Cadman —What rubbish! 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs IRWIN —You know it’s true. 10000 Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DJC Kerr)—Order! If members would refrain from interjecting, I would appreciate it. 52 15:35:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 1 0 Mr KEENAN —I am pleased to speak on this private member’s motion on Vietnam introduced by the member for Mitchell. I welcome his comments, the comments of the Chief Government Whip, and those of the honourable member for Prospect. I listened to them with interest. I am deeply disappointed, though, that the member for Fowler would choose a motion like this to have a complete race to the bottom in political partisanship. It would have been far more sensible for this parliament to say something in a united way to the current regime in Vietnam about the way they treat certain sections of their population. The words I would use to describe the honourable member’s speech would be ‘ill-judged’. It is a shame. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending the mass and celebration that accompanied the 25th anniversary of the Vietnamese Catholic Church in Western Australia. In my electorate of Stirling, which I am privileged to represent, we have a large number of migrants from Vietnam who came here after the Vietnam War. They arrived in Western Australia seeking refuge after enduring extraordinarily dangerous sea crossings, not directly to the landmass of Australia but to points in between. They were granted refuge by the Fraser government. Many lost their lives on that voyage, but they were determined to do it to seek a better life. In Vietnam their government was denying its people what we consider to be basic freedoms. It continues to do that today. Upon arrival here, though, the Vietnamese community made an enormous contribution to Stirling and to Australia at large. The success they have had as migrants was evident to me when I visited the Vietnamese Catholic community about a fortnight ago. I was also reminded at that function about the persecution that has been endured by people in Vietnam merely on the basis of their faith. The Vietnamese regime continues to repress its own people, particularly certain people of Christian or Buddhist faith. You have to ask yourself why. I cannot understand the frame of mind of a government that is scared of its people believing in something. This persecution is the basis for this motion today, and I again congratulate the member for Mitchell for bringing it before the House. Australia and Vietnam enjoy a very good relationship, as was outlined by the Chief Government Whip. This relationship is based on trade, on a shared place in the region and on the very strong people-to-people links that we enjoy through our large Vietnamese community. But this friendship does not stop us being concerned about the human rights record of the Vietnamese regime. Indeed, I note that the Australian government has been at the absolute forefront of promoting human rights in Vietnam. We have established a regular dialogue with Vietnam about the subject, and this year the Vietnam-Australia Human Rights Technical Cooperation Program was commenced. That provides an opportunity for Vietnamese and Australian institutions to foster practical cooperation on human rights issues. The Australian government also makes regular representations to the Vietnamese government about its citizens who are subject to arbitrary treatment and human rights abuse. This is a concern that is shared by many of our friends and allies and by international bodies such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. It is absolutely vital that the Vietnamese government observes its international obligations on human rights, and freedom of worship is a key right that is recognised by the international community. Sadly, the Vietnamese government continues to persecute members of independent churches, imposes controls on the internet and the press, restricts public gatherings and imprisons people for their religious or political views. It is the failure of the Vietnamese regime to recognise the right of freedom of worship that has led to the cases that have been outlined by the member for Mitchell in point (3) of this motion. Sadly, we know that individuals who are targeted for persecution by the Vietnamese state are subject to the most appalling conditions. Police routinely arrest and detain people without written warrants. Reports have been received about solitary confinement of detainees in cramped, dark and unsanitary conditions; lack of access to medical care; and police beatings with electric shock batons. I hope this motion today will highlight the problem of human rights abuse in Vietnam—(Time expired) 53 15:40:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —Like the curate’s egg, this motion is good in parts. Parts (1) and (5), unfortunately, are largely government self-promotion. Any government could make similar comments about the maturing relationship between our country and Vietnam, the fact that there is $81 million worth of aid et cetera. Point (5) goes to support of democratic freedoms and, in particular, human rights dialogue with Vietnam—which was initiated, in fact, by the Keating government. These matters are par for the course for a government trying to put their approach. I do not really think they are pertinent in this motion. Points (2), (3) and (4) definitely are pertinent. In fact, what was discussed previously was a much stronger motion about the situation of people in Vietnam. These are real people, real flesh and blood, people who have been imprisoned, people who are under house arrest—such as the journalist Nguyen Khac Toan, whom I spoke to about two weeks ago and prior to that a couple of months ago. He has a policeman standing right outside his house, just three metres from his front gate. Our conversation was abbreviated because the secret police in Vietnam use very sophisticated gear that they have brought in at a cost of more than half a million dollars to electronically intercept and flood those kinds of conversations involving people who are part of the civil and human rights movement in Vietnam called the April bloc, who, under immense pressure, are still spilling their blood and fighting the fight for true democracy and real rights in Vietnam. As good as points (2) and (3) and (4) are, we actually should have a much tougher motion coming out of this House. I trust that we will be able to do that on a bipartisan basis in the future. Why? Look at the Hoa Hao Elder Mr Le Quang Liem. He leads about three million Hoa Hao Buddhists in Vietnam. I spoke to him just a couple of weeks ago. What he told me—and what other people fighting for a real life for all the people in Vietnam have said—is that they need support from outside. They not only need their voices to be heard on our radio stations and to be beamed around the world; they also need support from this parliament and from the Australian people—not mealy-mouthed support, not conditional support, not support which puts the thrust on a bit of self-promotion, but support which says this: the government of Vietnam is communist in nature and communist in practice; it is a dictatorship directed against the people of Vietnam. All of the people mentioned in point (3) are not just individual cases, individual though they may be; they are emblematic of what it has cost the people of Vietnam because they lost the war in 1975. This is a people who suffered 1,000 years worth of occupation by the Chinese. This is a people who were occupied by the colonial power of the French but fought them and did away with them at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. This is a people who then had an ongoing war which split their country to pieces, which saw people killed, massacred and imprisoned and the country defoliated. This is a people who, in the end, saw the liberty of so many constrained and the lives of so many foreshortened or simply taken away by the cruelty of this regime. So we should not speak in an unconditional way about what is happening in Vietnam. It costs me and others in this parliament not one single drop of our own blood to say that we support those people in Vietnam. They are the ones who pay the price on a daily basis. The people here in Australia who escaped from Vietnam, from torture, from the pressures on their families, from imprisonment over long years—what do they want? They want it to be noted in this parliament that, when the Prime Minister went to Vietnam, he went to a memorial for our soldiers at Long Tan and a memorial for the North Vietnamese soldiers and for the Vietminh soldiers, but the ARVN soldiers, from South Vietnam, were not memorialised. I understand the diplomatic niceties in this, but it goes to the very heart of the way my constituents and the Vietnamese community in Australia think about this issue. I can support points (3), (4) and (5) in this motion, and I can accept the advertising and self-promotion, but we need to be as hard as we can be to condemn the Vietnamese government and support the movement for freedom and democratic rights. (Time expired) 10000 Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DJC Kerr)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 55 55 15:45:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —I move: That the House: notes the detrimental impact that the Howard Government’s WorkChoices legislation is having on young workers across Australia; expresses deep concern over the number of teenagers who now find themselves employed under the Howard Government’s workplace agreements; and takes immediate action to restore employment protections for the 2006 graduates from Australian high schools, many of whom are entering the workforce for the first time upon their graduation and are at risk of being exploited under these new laws. I move this motion today to draw the attention of the House to the detrimental impact the Work Choices legislation is having on Australian youth. I would firstly like to acknowledge the fundamental role our young people play in building this great nation. Their contribution to the workforce does not go unnoticed, at least on this side of the House. I would also like to point out that these young Australians are our future. Their first experiences in the workforce are vital in shaping the future role that they play in this country and how they will add to our economy. This motion notes the detrimental impact that the Howard government’s Work Choices legislation is having on young workers. It expresses deep concern over the number of teenagers who now find themselves employed under the Howard government’s workplace agreements, and it takes immediate action to restore employment protections for the 2006 graduates from Australian high schools, many of whom will enter the workforce for the first time upon their graduation. This House, and indeed this nation, has borne witness to the devastating impact that these extreme industrial relations changes have had on thousands of Australian workers. Senate estimates revealed earlier this year that 100 per cent of all AWAs excluded at least one protected award condition; 63 per cent of these AWAs removed penalty rates; 31 per cent modified overtime loadings; and 22 per cent did not provide a pay increase over the life of the agreement. I move this motion today to highlight in particular the horrendous impact this legislation is having on Australia’s young people. Whether they are working full time, part time or casually or are trying to squeeze in some extra hours with full-time study, Australia’s working youth have been universally disempowered by Work Choices. Australian children as young as 14 are signing AWAs under the coalition’s extreme IR changes. According to figures released by the government, 598 AWAs were signed by children under the age of 15 from July 2005 to May 2006. There were a further 7,779 individual contracts signed by youth aged between 15 and 18 years, and over 13,000 were signed by young workers aged 18 to 21. Considering the devastating impact individual agreements can have on young people, this is very troubling information and should be of deep concern to all members of this House. By stripping away the provisions that ensured fair and equitable outcomes in workplace negotiations, the Howard government has made our youth increasingly vulnerable. When entering the workforce for the first time, many young people are in no position to negotiate an AWA. I am not saying this to be condescending, but many young people do not feel like equals with their employers. Young people who are most inexperienced in the employment market, thus operating from a weakened bargaining position, will face highly exploitative employment arrangements slanted heavily in favour of the employer. The Work Choices legislation abolishes basic protections for younger workers, leaving already vulnerable young workers in a worse position. It is painstakingly clear that this legislation is having a devastating impact, particularly amongst this group. In 2006 some 330,000 young Australians are either working part-time but wanting more hours or unemployed and wanting to work, although they are not presently in the labour force. Young inexperienced individuals entering the workforce for the first time face a number of obstacles in finding and maintaining quality work. We are all familiar with the cruel contradiction of young people needing experience to get a job but unable to find a job because they do not have that experience. With relatively high levels of youth unemployment they fear that, if they do not sign AWAs, their employers will simply hire someone else. Job security is fast becoming a thing of the past—something relevant to earlier generations but not a basic right of our youth today. As a member of the Labor Party’s industrial relations task force, I have heard from numerous young people struggling under the repressive grip of these changes. Cases brought to the task force in Launceston have included examples of young workers earning up to $2.10 per hour less, with no penalty rates. The task force found that due to the low-skilled or entry-level nature of jobs sought by many young workers, employers can simply present individual contracts and coerce workers to sign them without negotiation. In this House, the government likes to stand up and dispute the cases that are put forward by this side of the House. (Time expired) 10000 Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DJC Kerr)—Is the motion seconded? 83A Livermore, Kirsten, MP Ms Livermore —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 56 15:51:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 1 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —The first point to make in this debate on young workers is that there are youth protections under Work Choices. Australian workplace agreements require a written adult consent for any employee aged under 18 entering into an agreement. That would be either a parent or a guardian. If that has not occurred, the requirements for approval of an AWA have not been met. Secondly, any employee can appoint a bargaining agent. This can be a parent, a family friend or a trade union official. Thirdly, youth wages are adjusted by the Australian Fair Pay Commission. When the Fair Pay Commission adjusts wages, it must ensure that they are competitive in the labour market. It is important to look at the record of the Howard government over the last 10 years. The second part of the motion expresses deep concern about the number of teenagers who now find themselves employed. This was never a problem under the Labor Party, when one in three teenagers was unemployed. The teenage unemployment rate was 34½ per cent under Labor. But let us just have a look at the record of the Howard government: over two million Australians have begun apprenticeships and traineeships over the last 10 years. That is more than triple the number under Labor in their last 10 years in office. The unemployment rate for young adults aged 20 to 24 has almost halved. The number of young people in full-time education has increased by 69.3 per cent. The approach of the Howard government is to provide people with opportunities to enable them to get jobs. Under Labor, youth unemployment peaked at 15.8 per cent. It is now 9½ per cent. The teenage unemployment rate was 34½ per cent. This occurred with all the protections in the world in place under awards and industrial relations law. None of them helped the young people who could not find a job to get a job. If you want to provide people with a job, it is important to have a strong economy. It requires a lot of discipline and a lot of experience to run an economy which is now over $1 trillion. When Labor left office, there were almost 100,000 more 15- to 24-year-olds unemployed compared with those unemployed now. Think of the human cost of 100,000 young Australians not being able to find work. When we look at the electorates, we see that 10 years ago in my electorate of Boothby, for instance, the unemployment rate was 7.3 per cent; it is now 3.8 per cent. Under Labor, the unemployment rate in the electorate of Adelaide—and the member for Adelaide has not even stayed to hear the debate on her motion—was 10.8 per cent; it is now 5.6 per cent. It has almost halved. Since Work Choices was introduced, 165,000 jobs have been created, and 129,000 of them are full-time. The unemployment rate at 4.6 per cent is the lowest in 30 years. Total rates of pay, excluding bonuses, have increased by 1.1 per cent in the June quarter and by 4.1 per cent over the year to the June quarter. Under the Howard government, real wages have increased by 16.4 per cent since March 1996. They actually fell during Labor’s 13 years in office. In relation to strikes, we have now seen the lowest number of days lost in industrial disputation since records began in 1913. There have been 3.1 working days lost per 1,000 employees compared with over 100 working days lost per 1,000 employees in the December 1992 quarter under Labor. We are seeing strong productivity growth, lower strike rates, higher pay and more jobs with Work Choices. Labor argued against this policy in 1996; its predictions have not come about. Instead, we have seen higher pay. Mr Beazley has been found wrong on every single count in relation to Work Choices. Statistics point to more jobs, higher pay and lower strike rates. The Labor approach is to apply more protection. This is the way to higher unemployment and lower pay. All the protection in the world under Labor did not stop one million Australians from being out of work. This motion is embarrassing. It is not surprising that the member for Adelaide has raised it. She is, after all, the delegate of the SDA in this parliament. (Time expired). 57 15:56:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I rise to congratulate the member for Adelaide for putting this motion on the Notice Paper and giving us this opportunity to talk about the impact that the government’s unfair laws are having on young people and in particular young workers in Australia. In the last few weeks, I have had the privilege of attending many awards nights at schools within my electorate. As I joined with families and teachers to congratulate the students on their achievements, I could not help but wonder how these young people will fare as they enter the labour market in the coming months. As the member for Adelaide points out in her motion, the class of 2006 will be the first to face working life under John Howard’s Work Choices regime. There is no doubt that Work Choices is an attack on the rights of all workers. Workers have lost any protection from being unfairly sacked, and they are being forced onto AWAs that strip away conditions and reduce take-home pay. But, of course, young people are the most vulnerable under the Work Choices legislation. In many cases they lack the experience and knowledge to be able to bargain effectively with their employers over wages and conditions. They do not know what rights they have and are more likely to just accept what is offered without querying it. That was certainly the experience of Shane Denning when he started his first job after leaving school. We heard about Shane’s experience when it was raised in question time a couple of months ago. Shane found himself forced into being an independent contractor and as a result was being paid a much lower rate of pay, without any of the protections of leave entitlements or superannuation. Shane said that he signed the contract he was offered, even though it was for such low wages and conditions, because he thought he had no choice. He said; When you are only 18 and you are trying to get a job you don’t ask a lot of questions, you just take what you get and you assume the law will be there to make sure you are not exploited. Well, not anymore. One of the points the government consistently raises in defence of its unfair laws is the state of the economy and what it says is a strong labour market. According to the government, it doesn’t matter how badly you get treated or how poorly you are paid—you can just go out and get another job. That is supposed to reassure working families struggling under the burden of record household debt and rising inflation and interest rates. Even if that were true for the general workforce, it is certainly out of touch with the reality facing many young people. The facts about youth unemployment paint a very different picture from the one that the government would have us believe. According to figures that I read today in the Mission Australia report, the unemployment rate for those aged 15 to 19 years is almost four times that of people aged over 25 years. In 2005 the unemployment rate for young people between the ages of 15 and 19 was 14.3 per cent. The other important statistic is the drop in full-time jobs. The Mission Australia figures indicate that we are moving to a situation where every second youth job will be part-time, even though we know that a significant proportion of part-time and casual workers want full-time employment. So it is not the picnic for young people out there in the labour market that the government makes out. The level of youth unemployment and the lack of full-time jobs on offer place young people in a vulnerable position where they are forced to accept work on low wages and with poor conditions. This leaves them open to exploitation by employers, and the take-it-or-leave-it attitude encouraged by Work Choices provides no protection against such behaviour. We are finding examples of these sorts of situations more and more. Just last week, on The 7.30 Report, we saw the story of Saima Tobin, who is a 17-year-old worker down in Melbourne. She was offered an AWA which reduced her rates of pay from $15 an hour on Sundays and $21 an hour on public holidays to a flat rate of $9.54 an hour for every day. Of course, she was told that if she did not sign the AWA she would not have a job. Similarly, there is Bill Schultze, a young man in Adelaide whose case the member for Adelaide has raised a number of times in question time, with very unsatisfactory answers from the Prime Minister. He was the young man who was also offered rates of pay in the AWA much lower than those he had been entitled to under the award. And Lorissa Stevens, a young woman in the Hunter Valley, was offered a dreadful AWA in the mining industry and again told: ‘Take it or leave it.’ Young people are standing up in increasing numbers to make their views known about this legislation. I want to congratulate the thousands of people who came out for the Work Choices rally in my electorate of Capricornia last Thursday to tell the government that the time to vote against these laws is coming. (Time expired) 58 16:01:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 1 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —You need look no further than the Herald Sun of 21 June 1992 to expose the hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party and the hypocrisy of this motion. The editorial of that day was titled ‘A National Disgrace’ and recounts the economic climate that existed at that time: Welcome to the lucky country. University graduates are begging for unpaid jobs just to get experience in the workplace ... Sacked apprentices are offering their services for nothing for a chance to finish their trade training ...Welcome to the lucky country. Youth unemployment is an open sore on the face of Australian society, its odour touching everyone. Yet Paul Keating and Joan Kirner are distracted in a nit-picking exercise over the nature of statistics ...Welcome to the lucky country. A desperate father is offering to pay an employer $100 a week for three years to give his son an apprenticeship. Yet still there is no taker as youth unemployment hits 46% in Victoria ... welcome to nothing. That was life under Labor for our youth. And this is an undergraduate-standard motion that ignores the reality of 21st century Australia. This motion refers to the impact on young Australian workers, but that is the point: they are in fact young Australian workers. Under Labor, they were the young unemployed. This motion feigns concern for young people, for ‘teenagers who find themselves employed’, and that is the irony: they are finding themselves employed. Under Labor, they were finding themselves unemployed. The motion calls for ‘action to restore employment protections for 2006 graduates’. I say to you: the best protection for year 2006 graduates is a coalition government. Under this government, the opportunities for youth have been dramatically expanded. Youth unemployment has virtually halved, and over the last 10 years some two million young Australians have started apprenticeships and traineeships, compared to a virtual trickle under the Australian Labor Party. We have heard the never-ending stream of lies from Labor and the union movement. We heard that the sky would fall in, and it did not. We heard that there would be mass sackings, and there were not. In fact, unemployment is at 30-year lows. We heard from Labor that wages would fall, yet they continue to rise. We heard that the Fair Pay Commission would cut wages, yet they delivered a $27 a week wage rise for Australia’s lowest paid workers. We heard that there would be mass industrial unrest, but industrial disputes are now at record lows. I refer again to the same Herald Sun editorial of 1992, which goes on to state that luck has well and truly run out for the Lucky Country. It says of Labor politicians: They should look at Australia’s lost generation and weep, for their hypocrisy is to blame for much of what has gone wrong and why so little has been done. Above all else they should stop talking and act, for the hot air they expel is blinding them to the need for meaningful strategies ... And what did Labor do? Labor did nothing. All the dogma, all the rhetoric—and Labor did nothing. It took a coalition government to act and put in place the policies that have given our young Australians opportunities. The member for Adelaide was probably in primary school in 1992 when this editorial was written, when young people in my electorate and around the nation had little chance of a job, let alone a career or an apprenticeship. The member for Adelaide did not experience the despair and the dole queues that were part of life for youth under Labor in the early and mid nineties. Perhaps if she had been a job seeker back in 1992 this motion might have never appeared on the Notice Paper. This government has given our youth hope. This government has given our youth opportunity. This government has given our youth self-esteem. The ALP wants to preside over the roll-back of policies that have delivered prosperity. The ALP wants to roll back prosperity to meet the demands of its union masters. The Australian people do not want a return to the policies of the last century. The Australian people believe it is not for all Australians to pay the union dues of the parliamentary Labor Party. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said in 1997: ‘Fairness in the workplace starts with the chance of a job.’ The member for Adelaide would be well placed to heed the wisdom of his advice. This government believes in opportunities. This government is creating opportunities. The Australian Labor Party is merely protecting its union masters. 10000 Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DJC Kerr)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 60 Grievance Debate Question proposed: That grievances be noted. 60 60 16:06:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —The plight of North Queensland is very much the creation of our federal and state governments. Professor Starck highlighted extensively on the national media the fact that, if you compare the amount of fishing done on the Australian coastline—and Australia has the longest and greatest coastline in the world—with that done by other countries, we harvest 30 times less. If all the other countries are dramatically overfishing, depleting their resource and destroying their environment, they must all be wrong and Australia must be right. It is a bit like our trade policy, where we are the only country on earth that has no tariffs and no subsidies. It is possible that the rest of the world is wrong and that Australia is right, but most certainly that is not my position. Professor Starck spoke about acid sulphate. He tallied up all the acid sulphate incidents reported on websites throughout the world, and Australia comes up with many thousand times more acid sulphate problems than anywhere else in the world. I am familiar with this area because we mined copper through acid-leaching methods. But it neutralised so quickly that it was never very successful. If people understand that the ocean, as a base, is alkaline and neutralises the very mild acid that may come out of some of these areas, it is just a ridiculous proposition. Australia has two unique tourism happenings to offer the world. We have the outback, but I think America can also claim that they have a very rugged outback, as we all saw in the Western movies in the days of our youth. But the Great Barrier Reef is unique—there are other reefs as good as it in the world, but none as extensive as, or better than or as accessible as the Great Barrier Reef—and we also have jungle. Many countries have jungles, but most of them have guerrillas—and I do not mean gorillas—running around in them, and they are not places where tourists are going or will want to go in the future. So we have these two unique attractions and they come together on the Queensland coastline between Cairns and Townsville. North and south of that paradise coast is not rainforest or jungle; it is fairly barren in the main. But that area between Cairns and Townsville has dense jungle sweeping down to the Great Barrier Reef, making it magnificent for tourism. In the last 20 years, except for the development by the redoubtable Keith Williams—and who would ever want to go through what he has gone through with that development—no significant development has taken place on that entire coastline. Discretionary powers were given through the precautionary principle to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority so that they can arbitrarily make any judgement that they please. They do not actually make judgements against any of these areas; they just say, ‘You have to get a permit from us,’ and give you no decision. So you are strung out interminably and indefinitely without any decision whatsoever to help you. Quite apart from the ravages of GBRMPA, which have successfully stopped any development on the only unique, magnificent tourist attraction part of Australia, it is sad—but in a way I suppose predictable—that Steve Irwin died in the very dangerous environment of North Queensland, when it is also the most spectacularly beautiful environment in the world, with the coral reef and the dense rainforest only 20 minutes away. But there has not been one single significant tourist development in that area in 20 years. In question time today I drew the attention of the House to the case of Booth v Yardley, which followed on from the case of Booth v Bosworth. It is an appalling situation when ordinary, average Australians go out and build up a giant lychee farm, a new industry for Australia—lychees are one of the most popular fruits in the world—and then find they cannot get rid of the flying foxes from their farms. Those of us who have lived in North Queensland for half a century or longer know that flying foxes have never been seen in such numbers. What attracts them to areas like Townsville and Charters Towers, which used to be barren areas where there were no trees, is the dense foliage that now exists as people have grown beautiful trees in their backyards and over big areas of land—and it is a similar situation in Ayr and Bowen. This has created an environment for the flying foxes which has enabled their numbers to dramatically increase. Whereas they used to be culled, as they were considered by the First Australians to be a delicacy, today North Queenslanders and Australians are not allowed to take them at all. They are not even allowed to remove them from their land. So we have the absolutely appalling situation in Charters Towers, Gordonvale and Cloncurry—and I do not know in how many other places in North Queensland—where people have 2,000 or 3,000 of these vermin in their backyards. As I outlined in question time today, flying foxes carry SARS; hendra virus, which four people have contracted and died from; and the lyssavirus, which I think seven people have contracted and three have died from. Some six per cent of bats tested for this deadly lyssavirus tested positive—apart from salmonella and leptospirosis. So you could have 6,000 flying foxes in your backyard dropping their waste product out of the trees and onto the ground and on you. I always wear a hat when I visit the long-suffering Jackson family in Charters Towers because I am really scared of that stuff dropping on me and my getting one of these terrible diseases. When the Current Affairs program came up recently, six of those bats dropped out of the trees dead whilst we were filming. They dropped out of the trees dead because they had some terrible disease. Because their DNA is close to the DNA of Homo sapiens, almost all of those diseases are applicable to man. These people have literally been forced out of their homes—in Cloncurry, Gordonvale, Charters Towers and so many other centres. What is being said here is: ‘We are going to protect these bats. You human beings can die.’ And I note that they are all North Australians. If it were happening in Brisbane, I bet there would be a different response from the state and federal governments. But we North Australians are dispensable, as we were in the last war, when we were given over to the enemy. Let the rest of Australia reflect upon the fact that Northern Australia has all of the water—three-quarters of Australia’s water supply is located in the top quarter of our country. More than half—60 per cent—of our mineral wealth lies in the northern part of the continent, as do more than half of our coal reserves. So treat us as you will, but, when you do treat us so shabbily, just remember that you are damaging yourselves, because without those people being located there you would not have those industries. Those industries are fading and wilting at present. I want to emphasise the enormous degree of ignorance on the part of so-called environmental scientists. A joke in North Queensland is that, whenever anyone asks, ‘What is an oxymoron?’ they are always told, ‘Environmental scientists.’ They then say, ‘Right, we now know what “oxymoron” means.’ We hear from them again and again that hard-hoofed animals are threatening the very delicate fabric of the Australian environment, so I have put $2,000 on the table—and I do so again today—for anyone who can drive from the outskirts of Townsville across to Mount Isa and sight 2,000 hard-hoofed animals. You will have seen 30,000 square kilometres—half the size of Tasmania—and you will not have seen 2,000 hard-hoofed animals. These people work from towering ignorance. (Time expired) 10000 Kerr, Duncan (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DJC Kerr)—Does the member seek leave to table the $2,000? HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —I table the comment! 62 62 16:17:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I draw the attention of the House to feedback that I have received from the people of Wakefield, whom I have the privilege of representing in this place. I spend a considerable amount of time visiting local train stations, meeting with people, handing out surveys and seeking feedback. I regularly hold whole-day community information stands in the Elizabeth, Munno Para and Craigmore shops, as well as listening posts in country towns such as Clare, Kapunda, Riverton and Balaklava. I also visit shops there, send out newsletters and get lots of responses from people. In looking for areas where the federal government could be working more effectively with people, one of the things that has surprised me since leaving the military to become a member of this place is that some of the concerns that are highest in people’s minds are not federal government issues at all. One that is probably at the top of the list of concerns that people have about the quality of their lives—and, to be honest, they really do not care who fixes it; whether it is local government, state government or the federal government, they just want it fixed—is the issue of crime. I refer to crime that affects their personal safety, the safety of their property and also safety on the streets, particularly with respect to the issue of hoon drivers. Hoon driving is something that affects people in a number of ways. Perhaps the most obvious ways, as you drive around, are the burnout marks that you see on streets. When I have doorknocked on people’s homes, they point to the tyre marks and say, ‘What you didn’t experience was at one o’clock this morning the unbearable stench of burning rubber from people doing that,’ as well as the noise and the associated behaviour and activity which almost hold some of these people captive in their own homes. They do not feel that they have the freedom to enjoy the neighbourhood that they perhaps helped to establish some 20, 30 or 40 years ago, because of the crime and the behaviour of some young drivers on the streets. Safety is another issue. I recently dealt with Mrs Pam Golley from the electorate of Wakefield, who is raising a vocal group of citizens to look at safety concerns around the school crossings near Crittenden Road used by students from Smithfield Plains primary and high schools. As well, older people living along that road and Peachey Road are put at risk by the senseless, dangerous and illegal driving habits of people. Some of the surveys that have been conducted to look at the speed at which vehicles are driven along that road, even during drop-off times when young children are going to and from school, show that speeds are 20 to 30 kilometres an hour above the limit for a closed-in suburban road. At other times, during evenings, the speed is double, or more than double, the legal limit in that area. Residents are concerned, and rightly concerned, that their cries for help are not being listened to in terms of putting in place, preferably, traffic lights to provide some level of control and certainty for older people and for young students who wish to cross that road, or even a pedestrian crossing with some kind of traffic-calming device which would act to physically make drivers slow down and give some degree of certainty to older people and young children that they can cross the road in safety. I have been assisting Pam and her group to work with the local government. Collectively, we will be approaching the state government to see what steps can be taken to improve safety. One of the most significant points that people raise around driving is hoon driving and the behaviour on the road of people who are quite inconsiderate and often are driving vehicles which appear to be—and in practice, I am told by the police, often are—unroadworthy. I have met with people from Neighbourhood Watch in Elizabeth, including Ferdi Pitt, the South Australia Police superintendent there. In fact, I have had Senator Chris Ellison, the federal Minister for Justice and Customs, who also funds the Community Crime Prevention Program, address that group and talk about ways in which the federal government can help. There are things that we have already done in terms of neighbourhood and precinct safety—things like closed circuit television systems, which have reduced crime. I will certainly be working with local people to see how we can help in that regard. But, on the traffic side of things, one of the things that I have raised both with South Australia Police and also with the South Australian Minister for Police, Mr Paul Holloway, is a system which is in use in the UK as well as in New South Wales. This is a camera system which reads the numberplate of a vehicle and, in real time, compares it with a database of vehicle registration so that police can tell in real time whether a vehicle that is passing them has been stolen or is unregistered. In the first two months of the operation of this system, the New South Wales Police were able to pull some 2½ thousand vehicles off the road. Many of those vehicles were found to be unroadworthy. A system like that, which is a small investment from a government’s perspective, actually provides a significant benefit to the community in terms of providing a safer environment for its children and its members to be on the road either on foot, on their bikes or in vehicles. The South Australian government has come back to me and said that they are looking at a pilot of a couple of these cameras and they are currently going to use those as part of random breath-testing stations. My challenge to the minister is to expand that system so that they can use it in real time and take significant numbers of vehicles off the road and to set that barrier in place so that people realise that, if they try to circumvent the system, if they do the wrong thing by society by driving vehicles that are unregistered or, even worse, if they are driving a vehicle that they have stolen, they will be caught and they will be dealt with. We owe no less to the people of our community. I have spoken with Senator Ellison about what options there are for the federal government to help out as part of the Community Crime Prevention Program and, if the state government cannot find the money—or will not find the money—to purchase that equipment, to see what options there are for us to purchase the equipment. We do not have the mandate to use it, but if we can help by providing the equipment, which the South Australian police can then provide the manpower to use, then that is a role that I am more than happy to try to play so that we can keep the streets in our area safer. Crime is a local issue, but it is an issue that affects people. I believe all three levels of government, as well as the community, are beholden to continue to work together to find ways to combat it. I am disappointed that, in the state system in South Australia, the community crime prevention programs have been scaled back. I am pleased to see that, from a federal level, we are still putting money into that. I was very pleased just last month to be able to announce some $498,000 which, under the National Community Crime Prevention Program, has gone to a primary school in Elizabeth and a group called Good Beginnings and their Turn Around Program, which are looking to increase family resilience so that young people have the support they need to prevent their move into crime and other activities that are negative for the community. So, whether it is through prevention or whether it is through working with the state and local authorities to give them the resources they need to then correct criminal or antisocial behaviour, it is certainly my intent to work collaboratively with whoever is prepared to work with us to make the community of Wakefield a safer place. 64 64 16:25:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —It has now been 1,362 days since Australian troops first entered Iraq on the night of 18 March 2003, marking the start of Australia’s military operations in Iraq. My grievance this afternoon is with the Prime Minister, for the moral and strategic blunders that informed his decision to commit Australian troops to this war, for the twists and turns in rhetoric he has used throughout the war to deflect responsibility for these blunders and for his failure now, over three years on, to recognise his tragic error in judgement and to allow our troops to finally come home. It is not easy here in Australia to fully comprehend the daily realities of the situation in Iraq. It has, after all, been raging for over three years; it takes place in a country the vast majority of Australians have never set foot in; and our understanding of it comes largely in three-minute packages squeezed in before the sport. But the Prime Minister has signed our names to this war and attached our international reputation to a successful outcome. So let us today take stock of what the daily realities are for our troops and for the over 20 million Iraqis who are at the bloody centre of this tragic quagmire. This Saturday just past, car bombs and mortar attacks killed at least 51 people in Baghdad. The injured were reported to have filled the hallways at three hospitals. Elsewhere over the weekend, Iraq’s interior minister said 44 bodies were discovered in Baghdad. Most of the victims were middle-aged and had been shot and stripped of identification. At least half-a-dozen other Iraqis died in clashes around the country. The US military reported the death of a soldier who had been injured in combat in western al-Anbar province. October and November were the bloodiest months of the war so far for Iraqi civilians, with the loss of 3,709 lives in October alone. International media reports suggest that sectarian killings are escalating between Sunnis and Shiites, and an estimated 1,000 Iraqis are fleeing their homes every single day for either a safer region within the country or overseas. The UK’s Independent newspaper reported last fortnight: Across swathes of Baghdad, fearful residents have spent recent nights guarding their homes, terrified they would be the next victims. This situation is horrific. But it is also an absolute outrage. It is an outrage because the Howard government has led us down this tragic path in defiance of the United Nations, also in defiance of the will of the majority of Australians and of every one of those families who protested against the war back in 2003 and in defiance of every single member of the Australian Labor Party in the federal parliament, who voted against this war from day one. I must also say at this point it is in defiance of the views of a very, very large number of the constituents whom I represent in this House. It is also nothing short of outrageous that within the last fortnight it has been claimed that the Prime Minister made the decision to go to war in Iraq over a year before the invasion. In contrast to his claims that he did not decide to go to war before the issue was debated in the UN in late 2002, revelations from the Cole inquiry show that AWB had been briefed on the Iraq war back in February 2002—13 months before the invasion. The Howard government, it seems, had us committed from the very beginning and had kept us in the dark, and all attempts at a peaceful resolution to this crisis were simply empty rhetoric. From this position, the Prime Minister pushed ahead with the war, deploying SAS troops into Iraq before the United States President had even declared that the invasion had begun. We must not forget that the power vacuum that we are seeing today, with Sunnis and Shiites engaged in violent conflicts across the country, was a predicted result of an invasion of Iraq. Yet the Howard government had Australia commit to this war without a sufficient plan to ensure a smooth transition to an alternate leadership in Iraq. The resulting instability and lack of security in the country not only continues each day but worsens more than three years after the invasion began. These facts about Australia’s contributions to this war, as well as the lies and mistruths that were told at the time about prewar intelligence, the lies that were told about the impact of Iraq on Australia as a terrorist target and the lies that were told about the warnings it got about $300 million going to Saddam Hussein’s back pocket will be recorded in the history books. This is a great shame, but this is a new phase of the debate. We cannot undo what the Howard government has already done, but we must move forward with constructive solutions to the quagmire that is Iraq. Labor have done this from day one. We have outlined our strategy for troop withdrawal. We have been consistent in our approach. But today I argue that the Howard government continues to operate without a strategy for the future of Iraq. The Prime Minister has refused to specify when he will consider the possibility of withdrawing Australian troops from Iraq. He has indicated only that a ‘signpost’ for determining withdrawal would be the handover of security responsibility to the Iraqi forces. But this vague answer is not really an answer at all. Despite repeated questioning from Labor and from the media, the government has refused outright to indicate to the Australian people—the Australian people who overwhelmingly do not support our continued presence in Iraq—when our contribution will come to an end. And should we believe the Prime Minister if he tells us this anyway? The Prime Minister’s justification for keeping us in Iraq has been rewritten at every turn of this conflict. We were first told that we must go to war to search for weapons of mass destruction. But none were found. We were then told that we must stay for regime change. That new regime is now in place, albeit far from stable. More recently we were told that we must stay to protect the Japanese, but the Japanese government has now withdrawn its people, declaring its humanitarian mission a success. Since the Japanese left, the Howard government has told us that we must remain for security overwatch. Clearly, the Prime Minister is continuing his approach of keeping Australia in the dark about the slippery slope that he is taking us all down. In the process, the terrorist threat to Australia has increased and tensions in our own region and in our own country have increased as a result of the government’s war strategy based upon lies and deception. This is an outrage. The Prime Minister’s prewar claims were explicit. In March 2003 he stated: ... I see disarming Iraq as being part of the wider war against terrorism because of Iraq’s past and continuing assistance to terrorist organisations. Yet this ran counter to what the Prime Minister had been told by the British just the previous month. In February 2003 the British Joint Intelligence Committee had concluded: ... the Joint Intelligence Committee assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq. The JIC assessed that any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists, not necessarily al-Qaida. It is an outrage that the Prime Minister of this country defied this intelligence and made arguments to the Australian public that were contrary to the advice he had received. The Howard government has an abysmal and shameful record on Iraq, and it will be recorded this way in Australia’s history books. We must take steps in the future to ensure that Australia is never again taken to war on such flawed intelligence and deceptive rhetoric. I support the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that, for any future foreign policy and national security policy crisis, the parliament should mandate the Office of National Assessments to produce a formal national assessment of the implications of a particular course of action for Australia. The Leader of the Opposition has also proposed that it should be mandatory for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide formal policy advice to government on the merits or otherwise of any decision to commit Australian troops to the field in whichever theatre. He has also suggested that, if military action is to be contemplated by Australia in the future under any circumstances, the government should consider making these assessments available to the Leader of the Opposition. The veil of secrecy that has surrounded Australia’s contribution to the Iraq war cannot be undone. But I believe we must take every possible step to ensure the Howard government never again have the opportunity to commit us to warfare without full consideration of the consequences. The Australian people deserve this commitment, our troops deserve this commitment and the Iraqi people deserve this commitment. The Howard government’s actions in the war on Iraq have been nothing short of shameful. Their actions have not been done in the name of the Australian people, and they have certainly not been done to represent the views of the people I represent. I will continue to hold them to account both within this parliament and within the wider community until the Australian public turf them out as they deserve to be. (Time expired) 67 67 16:35:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 0 Mrs GASH —This country is in the grip of what has been described elsewhere as Australia’s worst drought since records have been maintained. The nature of the Australian continent has been acknowledged through poets such as Dorothea Mackellar, who wrote: I love a sunburnt country, A land of sweeping plains, Of rugged mountain ranges, Of droughts and flooding rains. In other words, it is part of our lives, and any reasonably minded person would have accepted that it would be logical to drought-proof communities. After World War II, there was a spurt of activity towards that end. We saw the construction of the Snowy River scheme, the Ord River scheme, the Warragamba Dam in Sydney and a host of other storage facilities at a time when Australia’s population was considerably smaller. Since then little else of significance has been done towards drought-proofing our growing population needs. Essentially, all these schemes relied on storage and the belief that the rains would eventually come and ease the pressure. How things have changed. The climate has changed, the population has grown, the face of rural industry has changed—all resulting in an increased consumption of water at the same time as what is now becoming apparent as a reduced rainfall pattern. My grievance on this issue lies with the state government and their approach to confronting the challenges before them. Over the last few years, the New South Wales government have responded to the crisis of water shortage by increasingly pilfering the Shoalhaven River, so much so that it is said that up to 70 per cent of the water consumed by Sydney daily comes out of the Shoalhaven. Not content with that, they want to pillage the aquifers in the Southern Highlands, parts of which also lie in my electorate of Gilmore. This is being done seemingly with disregard to the environmental policies they advocated so vigorously when the Carr government came to power in 1995. What is even more remarkable is the attitude of the Labor member for Kiama, Matt Brown, who has aspirations north of the river in the new boundary redistribution. On 31 August this year Mrs Shelley Hancock, member for South Coast, moved the following motion in state parliament: That this House: notes that it is the Government’s intention to massively increase water extraction from the Shoalhaven River; calls on the Government to seriously commit to water recycling, re-use and water reclamation initiatives so as to reduce Sydney’s growing reliance on the Shoalhaven River; and notes the environmental stress already evident along the Shoalhaven River and the effect of this on the oyster and prawn industries of the area. It is for the record that the member for Kiama, Matt Brown, opposed the motion, stating clearly and unequivocally that ‘the government does not support this motion’. Yet he continues to mouth platitudes that he supports the community. What a hypocrite. There does not seem to be any relief on the horizon—neither from the heavens nor from the New South Wales government, and the Shoalhaven River is in real danger of going the way of the Snowy through overexploitation. If this drought continues, the river will most certainly become drier, and less flow means that the gradual creep of salty water upstream will be unavoidable. It is a real concern to me, it is a real concern to the residents of the northern Shoalhaven and it is certainly of concern to the Liberal candidate Ann Sudmalis, and now the residents of the Southern Highlands are starting to get that sinking feeling that they are at the mercy of the environmental buccaneers from the New South Wales government headed by Captain Iemma. Despite this cloud hanging over the Gilmore electorate, we do have some good news stories, thankfully through the auspices of the federal government, and I would like to take this opportunity to discuss some of these briefly. In the present climate, including the environmental one of which I just spoke, the government’s community water grant has been a very successful and popular initiative. It shows the way for how we will come to regard the future use of water by encouraging recycling, rain harvesting and domestic storage. Many of these grants are small but extensive and, the more people who learn of this new attitude, the more who will come to adopt water-saving measures. Mind you, these interventions are not new. They were part of the Australian domestic landscape a hundred years ago. When this country did not have the extensive water reticulation and distribution system that we have now, our forebears had to make do with water tanks, which we now are encouraging people to revisit, as well as other water-saving measures. The federal government has been very supportive of the Gilmore electorate in a number of ways. The most significant gesture has been to contribute funding towards the Shoalhaven Highway from Nowra to Canberra: $34 million to realise a dream residents had been entertaining wistfully for 60 years if not longer. Thanks to the vision of this government, through its plan to develop a south-east Australia transport system, Nowra was allowed in, heralding a new era of commercial opportunity for the Shoalhaven. The potential this offered, coupled with the massive investment in the local naval base, HMAS Albatross, stimulated investment and growth. More companies took advantage of linking into the defence grid and, in turn, those companies attracted smaller, supporting activities. The Shoalhaven is growing at the rate of about 2,000 new residents every year and that is putting pressure on the existing infrastructure. Among the more significant developments in Gilmore has been the Shoalhaven campus of the University of Wollongong, first established several years ago, and now with a medical school included and plans well in train for a nurse training facility. The medical school means that we will soon be able to begin to train doctors recruited from the local community, who are more likely to stay in the areas in which they were raised. Similarly popular has been the government’s Investing in Our Schools program. The benefit of this scheme is that the individual schools have discretion as to where they can spend the money rather than relying on the state government’s education department to allocate them resources at their discretion. It certainly represents a significant shift in the goalposts, and parents particularly have been very happy with this arrangement. The small equipment grant program has benefited many volunteer organisations which found the work they do a bit of a struggle. We tend to accept that volunteers will always be there, but only those within those organisations realise what a battle it is to get funds to do the things they want to do. Yes, the government has been very generous in many ways, but sometimes communities cannot rely on the largesse of the government every day and have to accept some responsibility for their own fortunes. As a case in point, Blueprint Shoalhaven came about last year following news of a series of business closures this year impacting directly on over 500 people, with a further impact on perhaps another 1,000. We just could not sit back and do nothing, so we garnered community support, created a planning unit and involved as many local people as we could. The teamwork that flowed was impressive. Many local industries and the council joined the process. The net effect was that we now have a plan for the future. In summary, the process consisted of four mini summits dealing with key industry and employment sectors within the Shoalhaven, such as defence, tourism, general industry, and health and ageing. At the conclusion of the six-month process, involving more 600 people from across our region, hundreds of volunteer hours and extensive media coverage, the Blueprint Shoalhaven action plan was delivered with a degree of fanfare. The action plan clearly mapped out almost 150 projects—small, medium and long term—which could be carried out to bolster the economic development of the Shoalhaven and bring jobs to the region. The Shoalhaven has been hit hard by the collapse of traditional industry, like Port Kembla tin and Adelaide Electrolux, and the community has, through Blueprint Shoalhaven, shown that it is not prepared to sit back and take it. Blueprint Shoalhaven has recently been awarded the Australia New Zealand Regional Science Association International regional development practitioner award. The award recognised, among other things, Blueprint Shoalhaven’s deliberative thought and action within the region, its overall development strategy for the region and, most importantly, its ‘quantifiable significant outcomes’. It is now incredibly important to keep the Blueprint Shoalhaven process alive and to satisfy the justifiable community expectation. We, along with the enthusiastic community members who make up the heart of the blueprint team, are now working to secure the necessary support to take blueprint off the page and into action. As an indicator of how well the Australian government is supporting the Gilmore electorate, this year alone grants of over $42 million have been received. This included more than $2 million from the Roads to Recovery program, on top of over $14 million in roads grants to local government. Our schools benefited from the Investing in Our Schools program to the tune of in excess of $3 million. Added to that, the schools capital works program, this year alone valued at $13 million, has improved student life in many of our schools. The government also generously supported the Dunn and Lewis memorial in Ulladulla, constructed to honour the victims of the Bali bomb blast. And many years after the City of Shoalhaven came into being, its first ever multipurpose civic centre will be built with support from this government of $3 million. We have secured numerous grants this year—too many to mention. But I did want to demonstrate the fact that this government has been a positive influence on the social and economic wellbeing of the Gilmore electorate. I would like to add that we have recently received an MRI licence for the City of Shoalhaven. In closing, I would like to lend my support to that of my hardworking colleagues, who have the ability to make a real difference in the state of New South Wales. Change is certainly needed, and the three Liberal state candidates who are challenging the three state seats which overlap the Gilmore electorate are quality candidates: Pru Goward for Goulburn, Ann Sudmalis for Kiama and Shelley Hancock, the member for South Coast. Mrs Sudmalis in particular has a background in teaching and business. She has not been tainted by politics but has lived in the real world. She will make an ideal representative for the residents of the seat of Kiama and certainly one who can replace the tired candidate who just wants to have photos taken and who parrots his party line, no matter how contradictory and shallow those utterances are. The Gilmore electorate is doing fine, and I am anxious that this success not be held back by the incompetent and self-serving approach of a discredited Labor government. It is time to go, Mr Iemma. 70 70 16:45:00 Hatton, Michael, MP LN6 Blaxland ALP 0 0 Mr HATTON —Politics is a brutal business. If the candidate that the member for Gilmore referred to is elected, she will be tainted by politics; that is the business we are in. It is at its core and in its very nature. For the past two years, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources has been working on the report Australia’s uranium—greenhouse friendly fuel for an energy hungry world. For the past two years, the former leader of the federal parliamentary Labor Party has been put to the test as a leader of his party and, indeed, as a leader of the political wing of the movement of working people in Australia. Today is a very sad day for a great parliamentarian and a very substantial leader of the Australian Labor Party. Kim again gave a magnificent concession speech in the caucus, and in brutal circumstances, having been told when he came back to his office shortly after he lost that ballot that his brother had just died. To walk out shortly after that and give the most professional of public appearances at a press conference is a very hard thing to do. Not everybody in this House or in political life could do that. One of the reasons he could speak so tellingly after the loss, as he did after his loss to Mr Latham, was that the strains of leadership were lifted from him. I think that if it had not been for the stresses of the last two years, and if he had been unencumbered by those and able to be as free as he was in those speeches, he might still be leader. It is the nature of political life that the normal person is tainted by politics and transformed in the process. I just want to reflect shortly on the nature of parliamentary life in Australia and pay tribute to Kim Beazley for the manner in which he has conducted himself not only in leading the party but also in this House as a parliamentarian of great note. He is someone who, despite appearances and the propaganda of the last two years or so, is well loved by the Australian community. I think the fundamental reason for that is pretty simple: they know that, whatever faults and failings Kim Beazley has, he will not do the Australian public any harm. He never intended to and never intentionally would. That, for me, in a profession tainted by politics, is a substantial thing to say about any individual parliamentarian. Kim conducted himself ably originally as a backbencher, then as a minister in the former government, then as deputy leader of the former government, and then in the very difficult first six years he had as Leader of the Opposition. You would wish on no individual the task in Australian politics of taking on the mantle of being Leader of the Opposition—let alone for six years—after a dramatic defeat of your government. This is no easy task; it is not an easy burden to bear. Australian history demonstrates absolutely at the federal level that once a government is in it is extraordinarily difficult to shift it. With his calculated brutality, early in our time in opposition the former member for Flinders warned us that, although we might think that we would easily get rid of the government, it would come as a burdensome revelation to us—day after day, month after month, year after year—that we would have to continue on the opposition benches for many years to come and that it would become increasingly difficult to see ourselves getting back into government. That is the nature of Australian politics; it is the nature of what is imposed upon us. Yet Kim Beazley fought heroically, particularly given how we were smashed in the 1996 election result. The most substantial, innovative postwar government Australia has seen, with prime ministers Hawke and Keating, remade Australia in a new fashion to make it a modern 20th century country with the capacity to build towards the 21st century. Its economic foundations had been utterly transformed from a very dependent one into a very outward looking and dynamic economy. That was done under the impress of a collapse of our terms of trade; after 25 to 30 years of a half a per cent to one per cent drive down, in a few months they collapsed by 25 per cent. But the response was there and we provided good government; Kim Beazley was part of that. He took on the task as a good parliamentarian. As someone who had been Leader of the House when we were in government, he had the civility to deal with people within the House according to its forms. It is a very sad day that—not once, but twice—it has come to pass that he has been rejected by his own party. He has been rejected by his own party despite the fact that the burdens he shouldered could have been shouldered by no-one else in the same way. No-one else could have taken on the gravity of the 1996 result and pulled us back to a position in 1998 where we won 18 seats out of the 30 extra we needed. It was a herculean task to win 30, and we did not, but we did win 18. We came back from the 49 we had up to 67—a great achievement. We all know what happened in 2001: Kim Beazley was just too honest. When the Prime Minister suckered him in relation to the Tampa, because he is a good man Kim Beazley said within 20 seconds—and this destroyed us in 2001—that he could never see that an Australian soldier should be allowed the right to murder people without being brought before the courts, which was foreshadowed in the Prime Minister’s bill. I wish he had said, ‘We’ll leave it to the people and the High Court to make a determination of this,’ because, after being suckered in that 20 seconds, we then had to mount an enormous fight-back to hold our position in 2001—and yet he achieved that. These were no mean feats. After the three appalling years that we lived through in the last parliament, he stepped up to the plate again. This was a Labor Party that was dishevelled and, one might indeed argue, rabble-like at the time and that had been led by someone who should not have been elected to lead it in Mark Latham. The Labor Party could have been destroyed utterly as a result of the decision of my colleagues, and Kim Beazley stepped up to the plate and said that he would try to bring the whole show back together. He manfully bore the burden over the last two years with all the strains that were involved, and I salute him absolutely. Kim Beazley is not the most perfect politician in the world. He is a normal, frail human being. He made mistakes. The Prime Minister makes them; everybody else makes them. We are fallible human beings. But what he does have strongly on his side is a good heart—maybe too good a heart. He has a whole range of other failings. Perhaps he does not interact with people in the way he could. He did not spend the last two years gathering and regathering support. He took the charge to the government, and we are in the position we are now electorally because of the fabulous work that he did. I am proud of the fact that, when it came to the crunch for the third time, like the second and the first—and whatever the consequences for me as an individual—I voted for Kim Beazley because it was the right thing to do. For all of my colleagues who followed the same path, essentially it is about the fundamental decency of this human being and the fact that he led with all his capacity. Today’s vote demonstrates that a lot of people did not think that that capacity was great enough. But today is the right time to grieve politically on our side for the political passing of Kim Beazley. (Time expired) 72 72 16:55:00 Gambaro, Teresa, MP 9K6 Petrie LP Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) 1 0 Ms GAMBARO —Today I speak about a constant challenge for the people of the Petrie electorate, and that is the provision of adequate transport infrastructure. The Petrie electorate is a long and narrow electorate which covers the northern suburbs of Brisbane and stretches all the way from Stafford to Mango Hill and the Redcliffe Peninsula. Cutting through the electorate is a very busy highway—the Bruce Highway—which is the gateway to the popular Sunshine Coast and all of the farmlands in the northern regions of the state. Those who regularly drive on this road in the north of Brisbane are only too familiar with the growing congestion that has occurred over a period of time. I see it myself every moment of the day. While I am forever grateful for the extension of the Bruce Highway and the money that this government has put into it, the drive from my home in Carseldine to other areas of the electorate can be very lengthy. My office is only around the corner from where I live and the drive can be quite a long journey. This traffic is ever increasing, and Gympie Road has become one of the busiest roads in Queensland. I witness the large number of cars that pass through every day of the week. It is an enormous amount of traffic. For far too long the north has been deprived of major freeways. The South East Freeway, for example, has benefited many residents, but residents of the north have constantly suffered without a major freeway leading to the northern extremities. Peak-hour traffic is starting earlier and earlier each day and can run through till 10 am on a typical day. In the afternoon, as early as 3 pm, we have gridlock, continuing right until the early evening. This is the case any day of the year, and those extra few minutes spent in traffic are cutting into people’s productivity as well as their time with their families. The north of my electorate has recently experienced great residential growth with vast tracts of land being converted to housing estates. All of that has added to continued pressure on our roads. While the close proximity of the highway gives residents a direct route to the city, where they wish to travel for work, they end up caught in congested traffic on state roads. Why is this happening? A lot of the blame must go to the Beattie government. They have failed to properly plan and provide the infrastructure for a growing Queensland. In the 10 years of the Howard government and during my time in the parliament, Queensland and Brisbane have experienced an absolutely phenomenal rate of growth. The number of people leaving the southern states to make their home in the Sunshine State has been demonstrated by recent redistribution of the electoral boundaries and the creation of an additional electorate in Queensland. Queensland’s population has grown by 21.4 per cent in this decade and we now have an estimated population of just under four million. Brisbane has grown at a similar rate, with the population growing from 1.48 million to an estimated 1.81 million. That is a great endorsement for all the things that we hold dear in Queensland—our standard of living, our sunshine and our beaches—but it does require the state government to look forward. All of these people bring new demands. They have cars, they bring their families and they need to travel for work and leisure, and the existing transport infrastructure has not been developed to cater sufficiently for this growth. One of the worst examples is the Gateway Motorway, a major Brisbane arterial, which already faces the need for an upgrade because it was not adequately planned for by the state government in the first place. The Howard government’s contribution to transport funding for the Petrie electorate during the 10 years I have had the honour of representing it in the parliament has been absolutely considerable. From 1996 to 2006 a total of $217 million has been provided to the electorate through four major programs: the black spot program, Roads to Recovery, supplementary Roads to Recovery and the AusLink national network. One of my proudest achievements is to have successfully lobbied for the AusLink national network funding that allowed the Bruce Highway to be expanded to six lanes as it passes through the electorate of Petrie. This project will eventually provide a six-lane highway to Caboolture. A total of $127 million has been provided to Petrie through this program. One of the best funding programs that the federal government has provided is Roads to Recovery. My local councils have been very proud to receive some $78 million. They have passed on to me their appreciation for this particular program and for their involvement in the direct funding of this major program. What they really value the most about this program is that it delivers funds directly to local government to spend on local roads, free from the interference of the state government funding system and the bureaucracy. The councils have proven that they know where best to spend the funds, unlike the Queensland Beattie government. The same goes for the black spot program, which provides funding directly to council—in the case of Petrie, some $2 million—to make our roads safer. A number of local roads have seen major improvements with things like traffic lights and islands installed at blind spots, so I am very grateful for that program. But the answer to providing relief for the road users of Petrie is not solely reliant on more road infrastructure. It is time the Queensland government reconsidered the prospect of extending the rail network to the Redcliffe Peninsula. There is not a day or a week where I do not get representation from my constituents on this. It is time that they extended the rail network to the Redcliffe Peninsula. The representations call for the extension of the line. The state government purchased land years ago—it was planned—but, at the last minute, the state government decided not to fund the railway to Redcliffe. I have to question what the state member for Redcliffe, Lillian van Litsenburg, is doing to act on their calls. There does not seem to be much answer to that. I constantly make representations to the state member but to no avail. I call on the state member for Redcliffe to start pushing for the rail needs of her constituents with her Queensland government colleagues. The north of the electorate of Petrie is growing rapidly. We have a number of estates, including the North Lakes estate, which will have some 25,000 people living there within the next several years. I call on the state member for Redcliffe to continue to push for the rail needs of her constituents and to work on her Queensland government colleagues to ensure that it becomes a reality. As I said, the north of the electorate of Petrie is growing rapidly. There are a number of working families there and they deserve transport infrastructure that allows them to spend time with their loved ones, not to be stuck in gridlock. Traffic jams cause accidents, stress, loss of productivity and, more importantly, lost time together. The Beattie government should do now what it spent most of its term avoiding—make a decision; use some of that growing GST revenue on roads and railways, which the people of the city of Brisbane deserve. 74 74 17:03:00 Edwards, Graham, MP 83R Cowan ALP 0 0 Mr EDWARDS —I rise to congratulate the Melbourne Age newspaper for its very courageous article on David Hicks and for the launching of their campaign ‘Bring David Home’. The excellent article, which appeared on the weekend and which was co-authored by Ian Munro and Penny Debelle, goes to the heart of the Australian government’s incredible flick pass of their responsibilities for this man over to the United States. This is, in my view, a cowardly political response to an issue which Australia should have demanded a resolution to some time ago. David Hicks is an Australian citizen. As far as I can understand, he has not broken any law against this country, nor has he been convicted of breaking any law against the United States of America; yet, as the Age points out in its feature, he has spent some five years incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay, charged but not tried, abandoned by the government. I have a strong view that if Hicks has committed a crime he must stand trial for that crime, preferably in his own country. If he is guilty of a crime, then without doubt he must pay the penalty for that crime. The Age article goes on to say: HE LIVES in a cell of featureless walls, 24-hour lighting and a single window of frosted glass that in daylight glows like a fluorescent globe. For five years, David Hicks has occupied spaces like this, caught between a US Government that has been unable to prosecute him and an Australian Government that refuses to try to free him. This sentence without trial, in conditions so secret that he cannot be photographed, could drag on for another two years unless the Federal Government asks the United States to send him home. Hicks’ military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, says Australia is tolerating a terrible situation. While Hicks has been in legal limbo, John Walker Lindh—the so-called American Taliban who trained at the same camp as Hicks—has been charged, pleaded guilty and sentenced. But Lindh broke American law; Hicks has not broken Australian law. “America would not tolerate this for one of its citizens,” says Mori. “Nor would it tolerate any politicians sacrificing some American citizen to the whim of a foreign country, regardless of whether they are our ally or no. It just doesn’t happen.” The Age has launched a campaign: ‘Bring Hicks Home’. I wish to quote from the highlighted part of the feature: How you can help To be jailed for five years in Victoria you will need to kill someone while drunk driving, or be convicted of rape or manslaughter. Once in prison, to be placed in solitary confinement you will need to be among the most violent, or the highly vulnerable. David Hicks has not been convicted, but he has been jailed—for five years, much of it in solitary confinement, out of reach of his family and supporters. He is an Australian citizen who has trained with terrorists, but he has broken no Australian law. By any measure, he has done his time. Since 2002, hundreds of men like him have departed Guantanamo for countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. These countries have included Albania, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Yemen. The Sunday Age invites readers to register their support to bring David Hicks home, and we will pass it on to the Federal Government. It goes on to say: Send your messages to bringdavidhome @theage.com.au Along with most other Australians, I have been aware of Hicks for some time, but it was not until I attended some lectures given by Michael Mori, who is Hicks’s lawyer, that I became aware of exactly what the situation is with Hicks. I want to say something about Major Mori. I quote: Major Mori ... is a Major in the United States Marine Corps. He is best known as the military lawyer of Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks, an Australian citizen. He spent four years in the enlisted ranks, reporting for training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island. After attending Norwich University and graduating in 1991, he became an officer in the Marines. In 1994 he graduated from the Western New England College School of Law, before being admitted to the Bar in Massachusetts. He was appointed by the United States Department of Defense to represent Hicks in November 2003, and continues to handle Hicks’ case as of August 2006. Mori has been featured on numerous occasions in the Australian media in relation to developments in Hicks’ case, and he has expressed concern over Hicks extended interrogations. He was one of the 2005 recipients of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Roger N. Baldwin Medal of Liberty Award, which was presented ‘to the five military defense lawyers who represented the first round of defendants at the Guantanamo Bay tribunals and challenged the entire military commission system.’ Major Mori has a number of military awards, including the Navy Commendation Medal. This is a bravery award. If Guantanamo Bay represents the worst of America, this young Major Mori represents all of the good things about America. Major Mori is a refreshingly courageous and inspirational young man who has taken up the cause of Hicks because he believes that Hicks has some human rights and because he believes that Hicks is being treated in an appalling way. Major Mori has the courage of his convictions. Hicks is well served. In an interview that Major Mori did on the ABC, in answer to a question he said: Well, I can’t disclose the nature of the evidence. All I can really say, I’ve been approved to say is obviously David Hicks has not injured or killed any US citizen or US service member. Obviously, as the Australian Government has said, his conduct did not violate Australian law. So it begs the question of what law did his conduct violate if not the country to which he owes allegiance. The article in the Age goes on to say that associate professor at Monash University David Wright-Neville: ... regards Hicks’ treatment as outrageous in a human rights sense, and counterproductive from the perspective of counter-terrorism. He says the denial of justice and due process smacks of victimisation and threatens an entire community within Australia. And he is quoted as saying: David Hicks has been offered up as a sacrifice to the Bush administration ... They had to let go of the Poms and the Swedes, so they want some token white guy so they can say we are prosecuting Europeans, not just Pakistanis ... I also came across an article headed ‘Time to bring Hicks Home, Joyce says’ from 3 November 2006. The article reads: Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce says it’s time to bring suspected terrorist David Hicks home to Australia. …     …         … Senator Joyce said he had been impressed by Major Mori’s presentation and had grave concerns about the prospect of Hicks getting a fair trial. “I think it is now time that people do stand up and start saying ‘Enough is enough—the process hasn’t been followed’,” Senator Joyce said. ‘Our respect for the process of law should be what engenders our support to bring David Hicks ... back to Australia for trial. ‘You can’t have people removed from the process of law for an indefinite period of time—that is not fair.’ Senator Joyce said Australian authorities could impose a control order on Hicks if they thought he needed monitoring or that his movements should be limited. I agree with Joyce. I must say that I think that this is courageous move by the Age newspaper. It will not be popular in some areas of Australia and it will not be popular in some areas of government. But this is an issue of human rights. It is an issue that goes to the heart of what Australia is about, and that is a fair go. It is time David Hicks got one, and it is time that this government ensured that he did. 76 76 17:13:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 1 0 Mr FORREST —I join with the member for Cowan in his recent comments about Mr David Hicks. More and more Australians are indicating their uncomfortableness with the outcome. Whether Hicks is guilty or not, everybody deserves their day in court, no matter what they are charged with. That is my position, and it has been made public. What I want to talk about is a great project in my electorate. If I never achieve anything in my ongoing career in this parliament other than this, then I will be satisfied that I made a difference in respect to the piping of the Wimmera Mallee, a stock and domestic system that supplies the whole of the north-west corner of Victoria. It is interesting to note that the members for Ballarat and Murray are at the table. Because it is so large, it has served parts of what used to be their electorates. Mallee continues, by redistribution, to get bigger and bigger. This is a water system that supplies the whole north-west of Victoria. It is over 130 years of age. This open channel system leaks much water—water sufficient to fill Olympic swimming pools laid end to end from Melbourne to Darwin and back again every year. It is a delight that, over my tenure as the member for Mallee, since 1994, this scheme—with the assistance of state and federal governments—has become progressively piped. It was tremendous back in October to stand in Halls Gap for the launch of construction of the western leg of the Wimmera section of the pipeline. Whilst pipes were being laid in the north, bringing water from the Murray River south, people in the Wimmera region of my electorate felt neglected and felt that their project was not proceeding. Even though enormous amounts of water were being saved, they just could not see tangible evidence. Level 5 water restrictions have been in place throughout the Wimmera, particularly around Horsham, for the last five years, so water is a resource that we can no longer afford to waste. At the launch back in October, I was fascinated by the contribution from Chloe Welch, an 11-year-old student in grade 5 at Yaapeet Primary School. The town of Yaapeet is where the Murray River water supply pipe converges. We cannot get water any further south, so Yaapeet’s water will continue to be piped from the Grampians in the south and will be at the end of the first western leg. I would like to read Chloe’s speech into the public record. She said: My name is Chloe Welch from Yaapeet. I am in grade 5 and 11 years old. I would like to tell you what water means to us at Yaapeet. Yaapeet is the home town of the former member for Mallee, Peter Fisher. In the past water has been brought to our town and local farms from the Grampians via the channel system. It delivered water for us so our community could use it for farming, washing and watering our gardens. It has meant survival for animals, plants and people. It has brought us water, however, lots of water has been lost due to evaporation and seepage into the ground. This is the thing that struck me when Chloe spoke. She said: Since we have been born we have never seen Lake Albacutya with water in it. There has not been enough rain in the Grampians to fill the catchments, rivers and lakes to overflow to where we live. We realise that it is critical that we save water. We are using buckets from our short showers to water the garden at home. At school we hand water our garden to keep it alive. We also save water from under the bubble taps. With the new pipeline things will change, some parts of our lifestyle that we thought we may never know, we will have once again, things like yabbying, swimming, gardens, farming, habitats for wildlife, fishing and recreation. If everyone saves water and it rains we may see catchments filling, rivers flow, Lake Albacutya full and people smile. Those are the sentiments of an 11-year-old in my electorate. It is quite staggering to realise that since 1975 there has been no water in the two principal lakes of the Wimmera system—Lake Albacutya and Lake Hindmarsh. Here is an 11-year-old who has never seen them full. To be honest, I have been the member for Mallee for 14 years and I have never seen water in Lake Albacutya. So I say: let’s get on with the piping. When we can save enough water to get those river systems operating in a more natural environment, we will restore the environment for the river itself, and we will watch our rain come back when we get evapotranspiration from water in the lakes at Hindmarsh and Albacutya. The Wimmera Mallee pipeline is not the only thing that is challenging my electorate at the moment. We have the drought, which is the worst in living memory—although there are some old-timers around Wimmera Mallee who tell me they can remember the Federation drought and the big one in 1945. It is taking a toll on the morale of my farming communities. They have been busy in the last month or so removing their meagre grain harvest. The drought is now so extensive that it is impacting on horticulture. Wine grapes, table grapes, citrus and orchards need rainfall. If they have rainfall depleted by six or seven inches, that means more irrigation and water having to be brought from the Murray, which puts pressure on that system as well. It is a little bit intimidating to realise just how many primary producers, including horticulturalists, are receiving exceptional circumstances support. But we will continue to be positive. One of the things about the Wimmera Mallee pipeline is that it is symbolic as a project in the national interest for which the National Water Initiative is demonstrably applicable—offering a partnership between the state and communities to save a resource that is so necessary and precious as water is. I am looking forward to the National Water Initiative being utilised to upgrade irrigation infrastructure along the Murray River, from Tresco all the way through to Merbein, where there are some soldier settlements as old as the Wimmera Mallee channel system itself and water is still being supplied with open earth and channels. With not just evaporation from the channel but also seepage, environmental problems are being created and groundwater tables are being lifted. So I am very positive when I say to the National Water Commission and to anybody else in the state water authority: ‘Understand that I, John Forrest, the member for Mallee, am not going to be satisfied with the large contribution that has been made to fund the Commonwealth share of the Wimmera Mallee pipeline; I am also looking for solutions to achieve water savings along the river as well.’ That brings me to the last point I would like to make. I would like to indicate to the parliament how relieved I am that the people of Sunraysia have finally made a decision to send to their state parliament someone whom I can work with: the new member for Mildura elect, Peter Crisp—another engineer. I am hoping that outcome will bring a much more positive and constructive approach—rather than argumentative, media-driven politics—and constructive and positive outcomes for the great regions of Sunraysia and Mildura. I congratulate Peter Crisp, who has worked extremely hard and has doorknocked every house in Sunraysia. In fact, he was still doorknocking at seven o’clock on the Friday evening before the poll. He is a great man. He has very positive solutions, and we are going to work to put Mildura back into a positive frame of mind; we are done with negativism. The people of Sunraysia have realised that sending Independents into their parliament achieves nothing, and we will work extremely positively together to ensure that the— (Time expired) Question agreed to. 78 Bills R2631 78 Bills R2630 78 Bills R2570 78 Bills R2641 78 Bills R2608 78 Bills R2627 78 Bills R2628 78 Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills. 78 Bills R2644 78 Bills R2645 78 Bills R2649 78 Messages received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 78 Bills R2640 78 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting. 78 Bills R2584 78 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately. Senate’s amendments— (1)    Clause 7, page 6 (line 30) to page 7 (line 3), omit paragraph (1)(c), substitute:               (c)    without limiting paragraphs (a) and (b)—expressly provide for a court, commission or tribunal to do any of the following in relation to a services contract on an unfairness ground:                     (i)    make an order or determination (however described) setting aside, or declaring to be void or otherwise unenforceable, all or part of the contract;                    (ii)    make an order or determination (however described) amending or varying all or part of the contract. (2)    Clause 7, page 7 (lines 10 to 14), omit paragraph (2)(a), substitute:               (a)    a law of a State or Territory, to the extent that the law deals with matters relating to outworkers (including entry of a representative of a trade union to premises for a purpose connected with outworkers), other than matters mentioned in paragraph (1)(c); or (3)    Clause 7, page 7 (line 21), at the end of subparagraph (2)(b)(ii), add “or”. (4)    Clause 7, page 7 (lines 22 and 23), omit subparagraph (2)(b)(iii). (5)    Clause 8, page 8 (line 32), omit “rights”, substitute “protection”. (6)    Clause 12, page 10 (after line 28), at the end of the clause, add:          (3)    In reviewing a services contract, the Court must only have regard to:               (a)    the terms of the contract when it was made; and               (b)    to the extent that this Part allows the Court to consider other matters—other matters as existing at the time when the contract was made.          (4)    For the purposes of this Part, services contract includes a contract to vary a services contract. Note:   The effect of subsection (4) is that a contract to vary a services contract can be reviewed under this Part, as the contract to vary will itself be a services contract. (7)    Clause 14, page 11 (lines 23 to 26), omit the definition of other review proceedings, substitute: other review proceedings means proceedings in relation to a services contract:               (a)    under a provision of a law of a State or Territory that makes provision as mentioned in paragraph 7(1)(c) and is not affected by the exclusion provisions; or               (b)    under a provision of a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, that is specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph. (8)    Clause 15, page 12 (lines 11 to 16), omit subclause (2). (9)    Clause 15, page 12 (lines 26 and 27), omit subclause (5). (10)  Part 4, clauses 18 to 30, page 15 (line 2) to page 27 (line 26), omit the Part. 79 17:25:00 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 0 Mr ANDREWS —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. I wish to speak briefly to these matters and—with the concurrence of the shadow minister for industry, infrastructure and industrial relations, the member for Perth—to address in my remarks those remarks I would have made about the subsequent legislation being returned from the Senate; namely the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006, which is a related bill On 1 December—that is, last Friday—the Senate passed the Independent Contractors Bill 2006 and the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006 with amendments. Some of the amendments further the government’s policy of enabling genuine independent contractors to enter into arrangements of their own choosing, free from prescriptive workplace relations regulation. Other changes further improve the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The government accepts these changes. I will briefly outline the nature of the more significant amendments. Senators of all persuasions supported amendments moved by the government to ensure our intention to preserve existing protections for outworkers in both state and Commonwealth laws. These amendments are consistent with the recommendations of the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee. Secondly, the Independent Contractors Bill 2006 maintains existing state protections for owner-drivers in New South Wales and Victoria. There was an amendment by the Senate to omit subparagraph 7(2)(b)(iii) of the bill. Proposed subparagraph 7(2)(b)(iii) of the bill would have provided that any instrument made under a provision of the law referred to in subparagraph 7(2)(b)(i) or subparagraph 7(2)(b)(ii) would not be affected by the general exclusion of certain state and territory laws in subsection 7(1). The effect would have been that any instrument made under chapter 6 of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Act 1996 or the Victorian Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005 would not have been excluded by the bill. That is the intention of the bill. However, paragraph 7(2)(b)(iii) is unnecessary because if a law is not excluded—that is, it continues to operate—then instruments made under that law are similarly not excluded, except where a law is excluded by regulations made under section 10 to the extent that the law authorises the making of an instrument. The omission of subparagraph 7(2)(b)(iii) by the Senate is therefore not intended to change the effect of the bill with respect to instruments made under a law listed in subparagraphs 7(2)(b)(i) and 7(2)(b)(ii). Rather, the amendment by the Senate removes subparagraph 7(2)(b)(iii) because it is a redundant provision. I emphasise that the amendment does not change the legal effect of the bill. There is no doubt that the New South Wales and Victorian owner-drivers laws and instruments made under those laws, such as contract determinations, are preserved. Thirdly, in respect of changes to the Workplace Relations Act, most of the changes to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006 are largely technical amendments, but I will single out for specific comment those that were the subject of involved consideration by the Senate. The first was stand-downs. The Senate has amended the bill to include new provisions relating to stand-downs. Under these provisions, an employer may stand down employees without pay, but only in specific circumstances such as a strike, machinery breakdown or a work stoppage for which the employer is not responsible. I am aware of criticisms that the new stand-down provisions will be open to abuse; however, these comments ignore the significant protections in the legislation. Firstly, there will be penalties of up to $33,000 and injunctions preventing an unauthorised stand-down which can be obtained by an employee or the Office of Workplace Services. Secondly, parties will be able to access the model dispute resolution process to resolve stand-down disputes. The stand-down provisions strike a fair balance. In their absence, an employer would be forced to choose between continuing to pay the employee despite a lack of work and dismissing the employee. The second change is to redundancy. The Senate also made amendments to ensure that redundancy entitlements are protected. The government is very intent that employee redundancy entitlements not be undermined. As such, for the first time the government is introducing safeguards for employees and their redundancy entitlements. One example discussed by the Senate involves Tristar Steering and Suspension and its employees. The measures passed by the Senate will ensure that agreement based redundancy provisions continue to operate for a maximum period of 12 months after an agreement is unilaterally terminated by an employer. Preserved redundancy provisions will also be protected on transmission of business. The measure will apply to all federal agreements, including pre-reform agreements. Finally, I wish to make some brief comments about the cashing out of personal and carer’s leave. There are also amendments that will enable employees to request to cash out an amount of paid personal or carer’s leave each year, provided that a minimum balance of at least 15 days leave remains available for full-time employees, and the pro rata for part-time employees, after cashing out. (Extension of time granted) The proposed amendments are intended to provide flexibility for employers and employees to manage personal and carer’s leave balances in ways that suit their particular circumstances while ensuring that a reasonable amount of leave is available to an employee in the event of illness or injury. This cashing out would be subject to a number of conditions under the proposed amendments. Firstly, a workplace agreement would need to include a specific provision that entitles the employee to elect to cash out an amount of personal or carer’s leave. Secondly, an employee must be paid an amount in lieu at a rate that is no less than the employee’s hourly basic periodic rate of pay. Thirdly, an employee would need to make a separate written request to cash out personal or carer’s leave. Fourthly, the employer would need to agree before any cashing out occurs. Finally, an employer would be prohibited from requiring or pressuring an employee to cash out personal or carer’s leave. This is a flexibility that has been permitted in the past, if agreed. Its continuation was requested by business, the union movement and employees alike. The proposed amendments will not affect personal or carer’s leave that accrued before the standard applied to an employee. The regulations to the Workplace Relations Act already deal with the cashing out of pre Work Choices personal or carer’s leave. In commending the amendments and the legislation more generally to the House, can I remark that these changes to the independent contractors legislation and the putting in place for the first time in Australia at both the federal or state level specific provisions to protect the status of independent contractors—of whom there are, depending on various estimates, between one and two million operating in Australia today—were specific commitments which the Liberal and National parties made at the 2004 election and ones which we urge upon the House. 81 17:32:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —We are dealing with two messages from the Senate: the Independent Contractors Bill 2006 and the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006. I indicate to the House that the opposition will cause divisions on both those messages. I understand that it suits the convenience of the House for both divisions to be completed by 6.30 pm. Like the minister, we think that the two messages are related and it is sensible to deal with the debate as, in a sense, a cognate debate. So far as the Independent Contractors Bill is concerned, this measure was opposed by Labor in the House and in the Senate. The message itself is opposed, save for the area which the minister indicated was unanimously agreed to by all senators in the course of the Senate committee report and the unanimously agreed amendments by the Senate on further protections for outworkers. The other amendments in the independent contractors area which relate to unfair contracts, owner-drivers, the exclusion of state laws and an unfair contracts review are opposed by Labor. They are contained in the Independent Contractors Bill message schedule of amendments. In the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006 message those provisions which cover similar territory, such as independent contractors remedies and those provisions which relate to building contractors, are also opposed. If that were the full extent of the measures contained in the schedule of amendments to the workplace relations legislation it would be three pages long, but the government has tacked on 36 pages worth of amendments which are effectively amendments to the Work Choices legislation. Just as Labor opposed in this House and in the Senate the government’s extreme and unfair legislation, equally these amendments are opposed. Like the minister, I will not cover the array of amendments—some of them technical—which are made, but I will make a number of points. Firstly, so far as the technical measures are concerned, the government, here, is repairing the damage that it did to the legislation and to the administration of the law in this area when it rushed through its original legislation. When you rush through legislation, driven by politics and ideology rather than by good public policy, you make mistakes. The government is seeking here to remedy and rectify those mistakes. The danger, of course, is that, given that it is also rushing through these measures, we run the risk that further mistakes will be made. That is the first point. Secondly, I will deal with a number of provisions: firstly, redundancy, then standing down and then some of the amendments to the minimum conditions—in particular the leave arrangements. Firstly, I fear that the redundancy provisions will not operate in practice effectively, based as they are on the government’s transmission of business provisions in the act itself, which are being shown on a regular basis not to work in practice. My great fear is that the redundancy provisions will not work in practice either. Secondly, so far as the standing down provisions are concerned, we have already seen in law agreements in respect of standing down. These provisions take them further and effectively put more control in the hands of the employers rather than standing down provisions being jointly agreed between employers and employees. So far as the minimum conditions are concerned, particularly those matters which relate to sick leave, my concern is that if we are not careful we will render sick leave a cash commodity rather than a good public policy measure which is there for the medium- and long-term protection of employees when they suffer from a debilitating illness. So that covers the main provisions. There is an array of other measures which I may comment on subsequently. Suffice to say that we oppose the measures and will reflect that by respective divisions. 82 17:37:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 0 0 Mr HAYES —Despite the multitudes of Australians that gathered only last week to protest against this government’s extreme industrial relations laws and its relentless push to expand these laws and integrate them into every aspect of their working life, this government wants to persist in winding back conditions. There is no doubt that there is a place in the economy for independent contractors. That is something I made pretty clear when I made a contribution in this place when the Independent Contractors Bill 2006 was first before us. I acknowledge there is certainly a growth in independent contractors. It is a fact of life and something that needs to be taken into account. But in taking it into account we must ensure that the terms and conditions are fair and appropriate in respect of contracting needs. I know that members on that side of the House perpetuate the myth that everyone can negotiate on their own behalf, everyone is entitled to be their own boss and everyone can take it upon themselves to negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. I would like to put a question to those on the other side of the House who have sons or daughters around the age of 18 or 19 who are entering the workforce, who are applying for jobs and who are being asked whether or not they have an Australian Business Number. I happen to have a couple of sons who are tradesmen, so I have been through a bit of this. I ask members to look at the Sydney Morning Herald on the weekend and look at the advertisements for an occupation such as painter. A painter is a person who performs quite a valuable task, but a manual task. Find a position in the Sydney Morning Herald for a painter that does not require an ABN. There simply are not any. People that apply for painting positions, particularly in the construction industry and other industries at the moment, will be put on as independent contractors. So before they get a job, that 18- or 19-year-old kid who wants to get a job needs to go and get an ABN. That is the way the system is working, and that is what this government is trying to perpetuate. If members opposite really think that what they are putting forward at the moment is going to help avoid the pitfalls of independent contracting, they should take a second look at the legislation they are bringing before us. The amendments that have been made in the Senate are minor. They do not make this legislation any better at all. The only way this legislation could be made better would be to rip it up and start again and have due regard for the plight of genuine independent contractors. Having said that, an important thing about this legislation is that it has made an exemption for owner-drivers in New South Wales and Victoria. That is a good thing. In my original contribution to the debate, I acknowledged that and I went to the point of how that occurred. That only occurred because of the uproar from the Transport Workers Union. They did a sterling job for their members, for owner-drivers, in the states of New South Wales and Victoria. I note that, at the moment, the governments in Western Australia and in the ACT are contemplating similar provisions for owner-drivers in those jurisdictions. As a consequence, I would be looking for a guarantee from this government to ensure that owner-drivers in Western Australia or the ACT, should that legislation be passed, have the same exemptions that are provided to the owner-drivers of New South Wales and Victoria. That would be fair. That would have complete regard to the position of owner-drivers. These people are doing it pretty tough at the moment and they need all the assistance they can get. The protections that are afforded to owner-drivers in New South Wales and Victoria should be extended to those in the other states to ensure that they similarly can benefit from the exemption flowing from this legislation. 84 17:42:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP 0 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —I will begin by saying how outraged I am that we are once again seeing an abuse of the parliamentary process by this government. What we are seeing here today is, once again, Australian workers having their rights attacked by this government, which is taking an arrogant and sneaky approach. When the government first brought out its Work Choices legislation, I was amongst all my colleagues on this side of the House who said: ‘Where were these proposals in the lead-up to the election? Where were these proposals when the Australian people were casting their vote?’ Of course, they were nowhere. In the sneaky approach which we have learned to grow accustomed to from the Howard government, they were nowhere. The government was silent on these issues until it thought it could sneak the changes through after the election. What we see here today is that, as a result of the lack of due process when the government passed the Work Choices legislation, there has been a need for so many amendments that the government has now tacked them onto the Independent Contractors Bill 2006. The government does not want to draw attention to the flaws in Work Choices, so it has tacked amendments onto the attacks on independent contractors in this legislation. I say to the government: if you actually want to fix this legislation, it is no good just tinkering around the edges. If you want to fix this legislation, I will tell you exactly what you should do, and that is what we are proposing to do: tear this legislation up and replace it with legislation which restores unfair dismissal laws, which protects the components of Australian employees’ take-home pay and which restores a role for the independent umpire. I would like to particularly focus on an area of recent debate within my own electorate. It will be no surprise to members of this parliament, as I have raised this issue before and I will continue to raise it, but I think there are some really important lessons that we learnt out of the recent ordeal at Radio Rentals in my electorate, at Prospect. It was during this recent conflict that the spotlight was really shone upon the problems involved in protecting employees’ redundancy pay. I note that schedule 3 of these amendments regards the protection of redundancy entitlements in certain circumstances. I am actually glad that the government are finally acknowledging that there is a major problem here, because that is the problem that we saw recently in Prospect. I will remind members opposite of what happened at Radio Rentals in Prospect. The collective agreement of the Prospect Radio Rentals service technicians was terminated earlier this year. Following this termination, three long-serving technicians, who also happened to be union activists, with 30, 26 and 17 years of service with the company respectively, were made redundant. As a result of this, one of the technicians lost $86,000 in redundancy pay. There was outrage within my community. Within the community of Adelaide there was much media attention focused on this matter. Whilst I am pleasantly surprised that the government are finally admitting there is a problem—that is certainly not the line that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations, Minister Hockey, put on Radio 5AA when he denied that there was a problem and denied any responsibility for what was going on with these technicians—the solution that the government have put forward is inadequate. The government argues that schedule 3 will give protection for employees in circumstances where there may be a risk that they will lose their redundancy entitlements once their agreement passes its nominal expiry date and the employer moves to terminate it. But the problem is that the entitlement is overridden where the employer and employee make a new workplace agreement. The problem also is that the obligation is on the employer to inform employees that they are still entitled to the old redundancy clause. Further, employers can offer a ‘take it or leave it’ AWA with no redundancy provisions which, on the amendments, will override the redundancy entitlement. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you will see, just in this one schedule, the flaws that come about when you rush through legislation, when you do not follow due process and when you try and sneak attacks on Australian workers past the public and past this parliament. I spoke against the independent contractors legislation when it was before the House originally and my opposition remains. (Time expired) 85 17:47:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 0 0 Ms BIRD —I want to take the brief opportunity available during the consideration of the Senate amendments that are before us to again place on the record, as I did in the debate on the Independent Contractors Bill 2006, my opposition to the measure. Indeed, I would have expressed my opposition to the Work Choices legislation if I had been given the chance to speak on it in the House. My concern with what confronts us today is that, once again, we have 39 pages of amendments—this is all about making it simpler, I understand—to, in particular, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006. There are also some amendments before us that are not to do with independent contractors but which have been hitched onto the back of this little wagon so that they can go through in this process. As is the case in the electorates of my colleagues who have already spoken, in Wollongong on Thursday of last week about 7,000 people gathered in opposition to the Work Choices legislation. The feedback that I got and the messages that were left for me from people who participated in that gathering indicate that people have severe concerns about the future of their families and, in particular, the children who are entering the workforce. My son, who is now 22, had an ABN before he had the right to vote. Why was that? Because he was considered to be an independent contractor. What amazing skill or expertise was he offering to the workplace? He was delivering pizzas. The fact that this sort of contracting work has been expanded to include what should be employment is simply an effort to pass on to the employee the responsibilities that should belong, quite rightly, to the employer. I refer in particular to providing your own insurance, uniforms and so forth. Needless to say, I always leave an extra $2 tip whenever the pizza boys turn up at my house because I am so conscious that, because of the nature of their employment, most of them have to do a minimum of 20 deliveries in an evening before they even start to take home pay from the job. This is a fundamentally flawed approach to employment and it is an even more problematic approach when you are applying it to young people who should enter a workforce that is supportive in providing them with the experience and skills that will enable them to become effective in the workplace. So I again place on record not only my opposition to a number of the amendments to the Independent Contractors Bill—although we do agree with those dealing with outworkers—but also my opposition to the Work Choices amendments. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the far more technical address on the Independent Contractors Bill by the member for Werriwa. He is quite an expert in this field and I will not go over the points that he has already made. I also acknowledge the contribution by my colleague the member for Adelaide on the particular issues to do with redundancy. Indeed, she has a very real example of that in her electorate, which we are all watching very carefully. As she rightly pointed out, the problem with these amendments, and what is of particular concern to me, is that they rely on the employer advising the employee. They also rely on the incoming employer body or company that has bought the organisation advising them that the redundancy entitlement exists. Why is that important? Because subsequent to the change they can be offered an AWA that gets rid of their redundancy entitlement. I think there is something fundamentally unfair in this regard. Given that it is the role of government to ensure that people have a fair chance in the workplace and in the community in general, there is something fundamentally unfair about saying that you can lose something without even being informed of the fact that you had it in the first place. If new employees going through a change of company ownership are to be told, ‘You’ve got to face up to an AWA; these will be the new employment conditions,’ with all the stress that that involves, and then to not even know that they had that redundancy entitlement, I think that is flawed, and I think it will leave people in a very unhappy situation. I have had in my office—indeed, it would have occurred in the offices of members of the government—someone turn up and say, ‘I’ve been done out of $85,000; the amendments didn’t fix it and I’m still done out of $85,000.’ That will provide no joy at all. The government has again attempted to rush in a few amendments, but fundamentally the principles behind the legislation are flawed and unsustainable, and the whole thing should be thrown out. (Time expired) 86 17:52:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP 0 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —Having given my colleagues the opportunity to make some remarks, I now deal with some of the so-called Work Choices amendments in a bit more detail. In my earlier remarks, I referred to my concerns and reservations about the redundancy provisions and the stand-down provisions. I think it is worth putting on the record the so-called frequency of payment provisions. The current fortnightly default frequency of payment provisions are to be replaced by a monthly default provision which can operate to the disadvantage of employees trying to balance their budgets. The provision in respect of the 38-hour week provides, on my reading, no remedy for the employee. The shift worker provisions give the minister the capacity to make regulations to extend those provisions. I think those provisions which deal with a number of amendments which the government had not previously announced or flagged are of concern. The provisions which amend the seven-day waiver rule I think put employees in a position where there is no requirement under the act for them to be provided with details of an AWA or the information sheet. The provisions where a wrong agreement is lodged are, by my reading, convoluted and run the risk of again falling into the drafting provisions and difficulties that we have seen previously. The public holiday substitution provisions extend, on my reading, the provisions where an employer can request work on a public holiday. The pre-reform agreements and standard provisions disturb the current arrangements where pre-reform agreements do not need to comply with the so-called fair pay and conditions standards. In a sense, the effective retrospective nature of those may well cause difficulty. Having put those on the record, there are some general points which I think can be made to put these provisions in their context. Firstly, there is the general drafting and rushed nature of these provisions. It is a minor 36-page version of the original statute, which the government rushed through, driven by ideology and politics. Secondly, when you look at these measures in the context of the government’s now 1,800-odd pages of legislation and regulations, these matters do nothing to address the fundamental nature and framework of the government’s so-called Work Choices legislation, which is fundamental to Labor’s opposition of it. There is nothing in these measures which provides or improves remedies for unfair dismissal. There is nothing in these measures which provides for any decent or stronger power so far as an independent umpire is concerned. There is nothing in these provisions which expands in any meaningful way the government’s five minimum standards. There is nothing in these provisions which would seek to reinsert the previous no-disadvantage test. There is nothing in these provisions which prevents employees from being pushed onto unfair AWAs. In their context, these measures do nothing to address the great and grave injustices that are at the heart of the government’s measures. When it comes to the independent contractor arrangements, whilst Labor supports in this place as it did in the Senate those provisions in respect of outworkers, again the changes to the Independent Contractors Bill do nothing to address the fundamental unfairness of that measure, nothing to prevent people from being pushed into sham independent contractor arrangements—where people who are in reality employees have to provide for tax and superannuation arrangements and are effectively pushed out on their own—and nothing to address the fundamental nature of dependent contractors. For those reasons and for the reasons outlined by my colleagues, I underline Labor’s opposition to the measures contained in the two messages from the Senate. 87 17:57:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP 0 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I would like to add my concerns to those that have already been made by the member for Perth, the shadow minister, and the members for Cunningham, Adelaide and Werriwa. There is no doubt that if the government were seeking to mitigate the adverse effects of Work Choices legislation upon Australian workers then they would do a whole lot more, as the member for Perth clearly enunciated previously, in order to restore balance in the legislation with respect to Work Choices. Indeed, if there were a concern that employees are being exploited by being placed under sham arrangements under the proposed Independent Contractors Bill then a lot more would be being done to protect those employees. I had the good fortune to be involved in the parliamentary inquiry into independent contracting and labour hire, and that was a very interesting inquiry. Indeed, the evidence was very disturbing because, whilst we may have different views about how we deal with the growth of independent contracting, and whilst Labor certainly believes there is a place for genuine independent contractors in our workplaces and in our economy, there were too many examples brought to our attention, both formally and informally, of people being pushed from being an employee to a supposed independent contracting arrangement so that they would then have to look after their own superannuation entitlements, their own workers compensation and other expenses that are normally the obligation of an employer. Effectively, people are being converted from being an employee on Friday to a supposed independent contractor on Monday. In fact, people younger than the age of 18 are being forced to take up ABNs and are being pushed into a supposed independent relationship between a principal contractor and an independent contractor. These amendments put forward for the government by the minister do not in any way protect the interests of those employees who would be subject to the legislation upon enactment. Therefore, in general terms, there are real concerns. I know this has been mentioned by some other speakers, but I would like to add my strong reservations about the amendment that is supposed to protect redundancy entitlements in certain circumstances. Item 10 on page 4 purports to protect redundancy entitlements in a Work Choices or pre-reform agreement for 12 months in two circumstances: where the agreement is terminated by the employer in accordance with the act and where there is a transmission of business. We have heard arguments that this will protect employees in circumstances where they may well be at risk of losing their jobs once the agreement passes the nominal expiry date of that particular agreement. But it is true to say, and it has already been said to some extent by other members on this side of the chamber, that the entitlement is overridden where the employer and employee make new workplace agreements. Therefore, because there is no particular requirement to have redundancy as a provision of any agreement under Work Choices, this particular protection is flexible. I mean flexible in the way the government likes to use the word ‘flexible’, and that is that it can be dealt out of any employment arrangement and therefore whatever tinkering there is to the legislation it will not necessarily protect the interests of employees that are concerned that their employment may well be threatened. Indeed, once a Work Choices agreement is terminated by the employer, or upon transmission, the obligation is on the employer to inform employees or the new owner of the business (Extension of time granted) that employees are still entitled to the old redundancy clause—I will finish on this point—rather than the Office of the Employment Advocate or the commission. We do not think it is fair to say that in all circumstances employees are in a position to do that. In fact, we would contend that in the majority of circumstances they are not in a position to bargain equally with their employer. That is why there are protections in place. If you remove particular entitlements or leave the entitlements to the discretion of negotiations between employers and employees, we think many employees will miss out as a result of the Work Choices legislation. No amendment that has been proposed will rectify that particular matter. There is a host of other issues. I had the good fortune to listen to most of the shadow minister’s comments and also those of the members for Werriwa, Cunningham and Adelaide. It really is important that the government take note of those concerns. If they would really like to have the law match the rhetoric of the government, they will attend to the deficiencies in this legislation, review them properly and make further amendments that would at least go some way to mitigating the disastrous effects the Work Choices legislation and the Independent Contractors Bill 2006 will have on many thousands of Australian workers. 88 18:04:00 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 0 Mr ANDREWS —I thank the members for Perth, Adelaide, Werriwa, Cunningham and Gorton for their contributions to this debate on the Independent Contractors Bill 2006. I will briefly respond to a number of the matters raised. Firstly, the matter of stand-downs was raised by a number of the members opposite. At common law, employers do not have the right to stand down an employee even where work is unavailable due to factors outside the employer’s control. Hence, any stand-down right must come from a workplace agreement, employment contract, industrial instrument or legislation. The problem is that in the absence of a stand-down right an employer will usually have to choose between continuing to pay an employee despite lack of work or dismissing the employee, and that is why many agreements provide stand-down provisions. This provision in the bill is designed to provide a default situation which reflects what is generally provided in many agreements within the industrial relations system. Secondly, the member for Werriwa raised a query about owner-drivers. I say to him and the House that the situation in relation to owner-drivers in New South Wales is not one which the government would have created had it been starting from scratch. The difficulty is that assertions and counter-assertions have been made by the various parties. The member for Werriwa mentioned the TWU and the Road Transport Association. The reality is that, having spent much time over the last year looking at these assertions, it is difficult to get to the bottom of what are the empirical facts. For that reason the government has said that it would leave in place what is in New South Wales and some provisions in Victoria and next year have an inquiry to try to get to the bottom of which assertions are actually correct, to test the various positions that are put by the parties and to provide some empirical evidence upon which a further decision might be able to be made. Thirdly, the member for Adelaide mentioned the Radio Rentals situation in Adelaide, which can best be characterised as an old-fashioned industrial dispute. It arose because there were some 17 employees—electrical technicians—of Radio Rentals who did not accept their own union’s recommendation for a collective agreement and wanted something separate from what was being proposed. Redundancy has always been a matter of an agreement and it remains so under this legislation, except for this further protection. Because of the way in which an agreement can now be terminated by a notice period from the employer, there is a risk that some employees could find themselves, if an employer wanted to act inappropriately, without their redundancy entitlements; hence the 12-month protection of that redundancy entitlement. The member for Cunningham mentioned the advising of employees about redundancy entitlements. That is an obligation on the employer under the legislation and it can be enforced by the employee or, indeed, by the Office of Workplace Services, which could prosecute for a failure on the part of the employer to give that particular notice to the employee. The final point—and I will not go into the argument because I know that for the convenience of the House we are looking at dealing with legislation here today fairly quickly—is that there are protections against sham arrangements. The member for Gorton mentioned that somebody could be an employee on Friday and a contractor on Monday. There are protections built into this legislation in relation to that situation. The changes to the Work Choices legislation, which are covered by this bill and the amendments in the next bill, are as a result of the monitoring of the legislation over the last six to eight months. We have monitored and we have listened to various parties. Some of these proposals have been put by unions and employees, not just by employers. We will continue to monitor the legislation, but I believe that these amendments deal with the major matters that have been raised in relation to the working of the legislation over the last six to eight months and I commend them to the House. Question put: That the amendments be agreed to. 18:12:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott) 81 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. 58 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Katter, R.C. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 90 Bills R2583 90 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately. Senate’s amendments— (1)    Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: 4.  Schedules 3, 4, 5 and 6 The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. (2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 24 to 31), omit subsection 900(2) (not including the note), substitute:          (2)    A person does not contravene subsection (1) if the person proves that, at the time the person made the representation concerned, the person did not know that, and was not reckless as to whether, the contract was a contract of employment rather than a contract for services. (3)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 20 to 28), omit subsection 901(2) (not including the note), substitute:          (2)    A person does not contravene subsection (1) if the person proves that, at the time the person made the representation concerned, the person did not know that, and was not reckless as to whether, if the contract were entered into, the contract would be a contract of employment rather than a contract for services. (4)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 16 to 19), omit subsection 902(3), substitute:          (3)    In proceedings alleging a contravention of subsection (1) it is presumed, other than in relation to the granting of an interim injunction, that the employer’s sole or dominant purpose was the purpose referred to in paragraph (1)(b), unless the employer proves otherwise. Note:   Subsection 904(2A) permits the Court to grant an injunction for a breach of this section, and section 838 deals with interim injunctions. (5)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (after line 8), after subsection 904(2), insert:       (2A)    If a person has contravened subsection 902(1), the Court may, on application by an eligible person, grant an injunction and make any other orders that the Court considers necessary to stop the contravention or remedy its effects.        (2B)    Other orders the Court may make under subsection (2A) include (but are not limited to):               (a)    if the contravention was constituted by dismissing an employee—an order to reinstate the person dismissed to the position that the person occupied immediately before the dismissal or to a position no less favourable than that position; and               (b)    in any case—to pay to the person dismissed, or threatened with dismissal, compensation for loss suffered as a result of the dismissal or threatened dismissal.        (2C)    The Court may make orders under subsection (2A) in addition to, or instead of, imposing a pecuniary penalty. (6)    Schedule 2, item 2, page 8 (lines 9 to 12), omit the item, substitute: 2  Subsection 819(1) Omit “or subparagraph 906(2)(b)(iv), paragraph 906(2)(c) or subsection 906(4)”. (7)    Schedule 2, item 4, page 8 (lines 15 to 21), omit the item. (8)    Schedule 2, page 10 (after line 6), after item 6, insert: 6A  Subsection 75(2) Repeal the subsection. (9)    Schedule 2, page 10 (after line 11), at the end of the Schedule, add: Part 3—Consequential amendments relating to building contractors Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 8  Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of designated building law) After “this Act”, insert “, the Independent Contractors Act 2006”. 9  Subparagraph 10(a)(i) After “this Act”, insert “, the Independent Contractors Act 2006”. 10  Subparagraph 10(b)(i) After “this Act,”, insert “the Independent Contractors Act 2006,”. 11  Paragraph 10(d) After “this Act”, insert “, the Independent Contractors Act 2006”. 12  Paragraph 10(e) After “this Act” (wherever occurring), insert “, the Independent Contractors Act 2006”. 13  Paragraph 10(f) After “this Act,”, insert “the Independent Contractors Act 2006,”. 14  Paragraph 67(c) Before “Workplace”, insert “Independent Contractors Act 2006 or the”. 15  Paragraph 71(1)(b) Before “Workplace”, insert “Independent Contractors Act 2006 or the”. 16  Subsection 73(3) Omit “subsection 84(5)”, substitute “subsection 167(7)”. Note:                This item updates a cross‑reference. 17  After section 73 Insert: 73A   ABC Commissioner or ABC Inspector may institute proceedings under the Independent Contractors Act 2006          (1)    If a provision of the Independent Contractors Act 2006, or of an instrument under that Act, authorises a workplace inspector (within the meaning of that Act) to make an application to, or otherwise institute proceedings in, a court, the provision is also taken to authorise the ABC Commissioner or an ABC Inspector to make such an application, or institute such proceedings, in any case where the application or proceedings relate to a matter that involves:               (a)    a building industry participant; or               (b)    building work.          (2)    If the ABC Commissioner or an ABC Inspector makes such an application, or institutes such proceedings, the Independent Contractors Act 2006 and any such instrument have effect, in relation to the application or proceedings, as if the ABC Commissioner or the ABC Inspector were a workplace inspector (within the meaning of that Act).          (3)    Directions under subsection 167(7) of the Workplace Relations Act do not apply to the ABC Commissioner or an ABC Inspector in relation to such an application or such proceedings. 18  Paragraph 77(1)(b) Before “Workplace”, insert “Independent Contractors Act 2006 or the”. 19  Subparagraph 78(2)(d)(i) After “this Act”, insert “, the Independent Contractors Act 2006”. (10)  Page 10 (after line 11), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 3—Amendments relating to protecting redundancy entitlements Workplace Relations Act 1996 1  At the end of subsection 347(7) Add: Note:   However, a redundancy provision that was included in a workplace agreement that has ceased operating might be preserved for a period of up to 12 months (see section 399A). 2  Paragraph 393(4)(b) After “by the agreement”, insert “, or is a bargaining agent doing so at the request of the employer bound by the agreement”. 3  At the end of subsection 393(5) Add:     ; and (e)    if the person giving the notice is the employer bound by the agreement, or is a bargaining agent doing so at the request of the employer bound by the agreement—state whether the parties to the workplace agreement will, under section 399A, continue to be bound by one or more redundancy provisions included in the workplace agreement; and                (f)    if the parties to the workplace agreement will continue to be so bound—include an annexed copy of the provision or the provisions. 4  Paragraph 394(5)(a) After “lodges”, insert “, or a bargaining agent lodges at the request of the employer,”. 5  Paragraph 394(5)(c) Repeal the paragraph, substitute:               (c)    a copy of the undertakings was not annexed to the declaration. 6  At the end of subsection 395(1) Add:     ; and (c)    if the employer in relation to the agreement, or a bargaining agent at the request of the employer in relation to the agreement, lodges the declaration to terminate the agreement under section 393—the declaration states whether the parties to the agreement will, under section 399A, continue to be bound by one or more redundancy provisions included in the agreement. 7  Subsection 395(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute:          (2)    If the employer in relation to the agreement, or a bargaining agent at the request of the employer in relation to the agreement, lodges the declaration to terminate the agreement under section 393, undertakings are lodged in relation to the termination if a copy of the undertakings is annexed to the declaration. 8  After subsection 396(1) Insert:       (1A)    If the employer in relation to a workplace agreement, or a bargaining agent at the request of the employer in relation to a workplace agreement, lodged a declaration under subsection 395(1) to terminate the agreement under section 393, the receipt must state whether:               (a)    the declaration so lodged states that the parties to the workplace agreement will continue to be bound by one or more redundancy provisions included in the workplace agreement that was terminated; and               (b)    a copy of the provision or provisions was annexed to the declaration. 9  At the end of Division 9 of Part 8 Add: 399A  Preservation of redundancy provisions in certain circumstances          (1)    This section applies if a workplace agreement is terminated unilaterally, in accordance with section 393, by the employer in relation to the agreement or by a bargaining agent at the request of the employer in relation to the agreement.          (2)    Any party who was bound by the workplace agreement immediately before it ceased operating continues to be bound, immediately after that time, by any redundancy provision that was included in the workplace agreement as if the workplace agreement had continued operating.       (2A)    Parts 6 and 14 of this Act apply to a redundancy provision referred to in subsection (2) as if the provision was a workplace agreement in operation.          (3)    A party continues to be bound by a redundancy provision referred to in subsection (2), in relation to an employee who is bound by the redundancy provision, until the earliest of the following:               (a)    the end of the period of 12 months from the time that the workplace agreement ceased operating;               (b)    the time when the employee ceases to be employed by the employer;               (c)    the time when another workplace agreement comes into operation in relation to the employee and the employer.          (4)    In this section: redundancy provision means any of the following kinds of provisions:               (a)    a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (b)    a provision that is incidental to a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (c)    a machinery provision that is in respect of a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment; where the termination is at the initiative of the employer and on the grounds of operational requirements, or because the employer is insolvent. 10  After Division 6 of Part 11 Insert: Division 6A—Transmission of preserved redundancy provisions from workplace agreements 598A  Transmission of preserved redundancy provisions from workplace agreements          (1)    If:               (a)    immediately before the time of transmission:                     (i)    the old employer; and                    (ii)    an employee;                        were bound, under section 399A or because of a previous application of this section, by a redundancy provision that was previously included in a workplace agreement that was terminated; and               (b)    the employee is a transferring employee; the new employer is bound by the redundancy provision in relation to the transferring employee by force of this section. Note:   The new employer must notify the transferring employee and lodge a copy of the notice with the Employment Advocate (see sections 603A and 603B).          (2)    Subject to subsection (3), the redundancy provision prevails over any other redundancy provision included in any other instrument that would otherwise have effect, to the extent of any inconsistency. Period for which new employer remains bound          (3)    The new employer remains bound by the redundancy provision in relation to the transferring employee, by force of this section, until the earliest of the following:               (a)    the end of the period of 12 months from the time that the workplace agreement referred to in paragraph (1)(a) ceased operating;               (b)    the time when the transferring employee ceases to be employed by the new employer;               (c)    the time when another workplace agreement comes into operation in relation to the new employer and the transferring employee. Old employer’s rights and obligations that arose before time of transmission not affected          (4)    This section does not affect the rights and obligations of the old employer that arose before the time of transmission. Definitions          (5)    In this section: instrument means any of the following:               (a)    a workplace agreement;               (b)    a pre‑reform certified agreement (within the meaning of Schedule 7);               (c)    a preserved State agreement;               (d)    a notional agreement preserving State awards;               (e)    an award. redundancy provision means any of the following kinds of provisions:               (a)    a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (b)    a provision that is incidental to a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (c)    a machinery provision that is in respect of a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment; where the termination is at the initiative of the employer and on the grounds of operational requirements, or because the employer is insolvent. 11  After section 603 Insert: 603A  Informing transferring employees about transmission of preserved redundancy provisions          (1)    This section applies if an employer is bound, by force of section 598A, by one or more redundancy provisions (within the meaning of that section) in relation to a transferring employee.          (2)    Within 28 days after the transferring employee starts being employed by the employer, the employer must take reasonable steps to give the transferring employee a written notice that complies with subsection (3). Note:   This is a civil remedy provision, see section 605.          (3)    The notice must:               (a)    identify the redundancy provision or redundancy provisions; and               (b)    state that the employer is bound by the provision or provisions; and               (c)    specify the date that is 12 months after the time that the workplace agreement that included the provision or provisions ceased operating; and               (d)    state that the employer will remain bound by the provision or provisions until that date, or an earlier date in accordance with subsection 598A(3).          (4)    Subsection (2) does not apply if a workplace agreement comes into operation in relation to the employer and the transferring employee within 14 days of the time of transmission. 603B  Lodging copy of notice about preserved redundancy provisions with Employment Advocate          (1)    If an employer gives a notice under section 603A to a transferring employee, the employer must lodge a copy of the notice with the Employment Advocate within the period specified in subsection (2). The copy must be lodged in accordance with subsection (3). Note 1:  This is a civil remedy provision, see section 605. Note 2:  Sections 137.1 and 137.2 of the Criminal Code create offences for providing false or misleading information or documents.          (2)    The notice must be lodged within 14 days after the day specified in paragraph (a) or (b):               (a)    if the employer gives a notice to an employee in respect of a redundancy provision that was included in an AWA—the day on which that notice is given; or               (b)    if the employer gives one or more notices to one or more employees in respect of a redundancy provision that was included in a collective agreement—the earliest day on which a notice was given. Lodgment with Employment Advocate          (3)    A notice is lodged with the Employment Advocate in accordance with this subsection only if it is actually received by the Employment Advocate. Note:   This means that section 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (to the extent that it deals with the time of service of documents) does not apply to lodgment of a notice. 12  Subsection 604(1) After “603”, insert “or 603B”. 13  Subsection 604(2) After “603”, insert “or 603B (as the case requires)”. 14  Subsection 604(3) After “603”, insert “or 603B”. 15  At the end of subsection 605(1) Add:             ; (d)    subsection 603A(2);               (e)    subsection 603B(1). 16  Subsection 605(5) After “an instrument”, insert “, or in relation to a preserved redundancy provision that was previously included in an instrument,”. 17  Subsection 605(5) (table item 2) After “bound by the agreement”, insert “or the redundancy provision”. 17A  Section 717 (note 1 to the definition of applicable provision) Before “This”, insert “Preserved redundancy provisions are treated as if they were workplace agreements (see for example section 399A).”. 18  At the end of subclause 3(4) of Schedule 7 Add: Note:   However, a redundancy provision that was included in a pre‑reform certified agreement that has ceased operating might be preserved for a period of up to 12 months (see clause 6A). 19  After clause 6 of Schedule 7 Insert: 6A  Preservation of redundancy provisions in certain circumstances          (1)    This clause applies if a pre‑reform certified agreement is terminated, on application by the employer in relation to the agreement, by the Commission in accordance with subsection 170MH(3) of the pre‑reform Act. Note:   Subsection 170MH(3) of the pre‑reform Act continues to apply because of paragraph 2(1)(k) of this Schedule.          (2)    Any party who was bound by the pre‑reform certified agreement immediately before it ceased operating continues to be bound, immediately after that time, by any redundancy provision that was included in the pre‑reform certified agreement as if the pre‑reform certified agreement had continued operating.       (2A)    Parts 6 and 14 of this Act apply to a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2) as if the provision was a pre‑reform certified agreement in operation.          (3)    Subject to subclause (4), a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2) prevails over any other redundancy provision included in any other instrument that would otherwise have effect.          (4)    A party continues to be bound by a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2), in relation to an employee who is bound by the redundancy provision, until the earliest of the following:               (a)    the end of the period of 12 months from the time that the pre‑reform certified agreement ceased operating;               (b)    the time when the employee ceases to be employed by the employer;               (c)    the time when a workplace agreement comes into operation in relation to the employee and the employer.          (5)    In this clause: instrument means either of the following:               (a)    a preserved State agreement;               (b)    a notional agreement preserving State awards;               (c)    an award;               (d)    a transitional award (within the meaning of Schedule 6). redundancy provision means any of the following kinds of provisions:               (a)    a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (b)    a provision that is incidental to a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (c)    a machinery provision that is in respect of a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment; where the termination is at the initiative of the employer and on the grounds of operational requirements, or because the employer is insolvent. 6B  Notification of preservation of redundancy provisions          (1)    This clause applies if the parties to a pre‑reform certified agreement will, under clause 6A, continue to be bound by one or more redundancy provisions included in the agreement.          (2)    The Commission must issue a copy of the order terminating the agreement to:               (a)    the employer who will be bound by the redundancy provision or the redundancy provisions; and               (b)    any organisation of employees that will be bound by the redundancy provision or the redundancy provisions.          (3)    The order must:               (a)    identify the redundancy provision or the redundancy provisions; and               (b)    state that the parties to the agreement will be bound by the provision or provisions; and               (c)    specify the date that is 12 months after the time that the order terminating the agreement takes effect; and               (d)    state that the parties will remain bound by the provision or provisions until that date, or an earlier date in accordance with subclause 6A(4). 6C  Employer must notify employees of preserved redundancy provisions          (1)    An employer that has, under clause 6B, received a copy of an order terminating a pre‑reform certified agreement must take reasonable steps to ensure that all employees who are bound by the agreement immediately before the agreement ceases operating are, within 21 days of the employer receiving a copy of the order, given a copy of the order.          (2)    Subclause (1) is a civil remedy provision for the purpose of this clause. Note:   Division 3 of Part 14 contains other provisions relevant to civil remedies.          (3)    The Court may order a person who has contravened the civil remedy provision to pay a pecuniary penalty. Note:   Division 3 of Part 14 contains other provisions relevant to civil remedies.          (4)    The penalty cannot be more than 300 penalty units for a body corporate or 60 penalty units in other cases.          (5)    An application for an order under subclause (3) in relation to a pre‑reform certified agreement may be made by the following persons:               (a)    an employee who is bound by the agreement immediately before the agreement ceases operating;               (b)    an organisation of employees that is bound by the agreement immediately before the agreement ceases operating;               (c)    an organisation of employees that is entitled, under its eligibility rules, to represent the industrial interests of an employee referred to in paragraph (a) and has been requested by the employee to apply for the order on the employee’s behalf;               (d)    a workplace inspector. 20  At the end of subclause 18(3) of Schedule 7 Add: Note:   However, a redundancy provision that was included in a pre‑reform AWA that has ceased operating might be preserved for a period of up to 12 months (see clause 20A). 21  After clause 20 of Schedule 7 Insert: 20A  Preservation of redundancy provisions in certain circumstances          (1)    This clause applies if a pre‑reform AWA is terminated, on application by the employer in relation to the AWA, by the Commission in accordance with subsection 170VM(3) of the pre‑reform Act. Note:   Subsection 170VM(3) of the pre‑reform Act continues to apply because of paragraph 17(1)(c) of this Schedule.          (2)    The employer and the employee in relation to the pre‑reform AWA continue to be bound, immediately after the pre‑reform AWA ceases operating, by any redundancy provision that was included in the pre‑reform AWA as if the pre‑reform AWA had continued operating.       (2A)    Parts 6 and 14 of this Act apply to a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2) as if the provision was a pre‑reform AWA in operation.          (3)    Subject to subclause (4), a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2) prevails over any other redundancy provision included in any other instrument that would otherwise have effect.          (4)    The employer continues to be bound by a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2), in relation to the employee, until the earliest of the following:               (a)    the end of the period of 12 months from the time that the pre‑reform AWA ceases operating;               (b)    the time when the employee ceases to be employed by the employer;               (c)    the time when a workplace agreement comes into operation in relation to the employee and the employer.          (5)    In this clause: instrument means any of the following:               (a)    a collective agreement;               (b)    a pre‑reform certified agreement;               (c)    a notional agreement preserving State awards;               (d)    an award. redundancy provision means any of the following kinds of provisions:               (a)    a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (b)    a provision that is incidental to a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (c)    a machinery provision that is in respect of a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment; where the termination is at the initiative of the employer and on the grounds of operational requirements, or because the employer is insolvent. 20B  Notification of preservation of redundancy provisions          (1)    This clause applies if the employer and the employee in relation to a pre‑reform AWA will, under clause 20A, continue to be bound by one or more redundancy provisions included in the pre‑reform AWA.          (2)    The determination issued by the Commission under subsection 170VM(4) of the pre‑reform Act must:               (a)    identify the redundancy provision or the redundancy provisions; and               (b)    state that the employer and the employee in relation to the pre‑reform AWA will be bound by the provision or provisions; and               (c)    specify the date that is 12 months after the time that the determination terminating the pre‑reform AWA takes effect; and               (d)    state that the employer and the employee will remain bound by the provision or provisions until that date, or an earlier date in accordance with subclause 20A(4). 22  After clause 21 of Schedule 8 Insert: 21A  Preservation of redundancy provisions in preserved collective State agreements in certain circumstances          (1)    This clause applies if a preserved collective State agreement is terminated, on application by the employer in relation to the agreement, by the Commission in accordance with subsection 170MH(3) of the pre‑reform Act. Note:   Subsection 170MH(3) of the pre‑reform Act applies because of subclause 21(2) of this Schedule and paragraph 2(1)(k) of Schedule 7.          (2)    Any party who was bound by the preserved collective State agreement immediately before it ceased operating continues to be bound, immediately after that time, by any redundancy provision that was included in the agreement as if the agreement had continued operating.       (2A)    Parts 6 and 14 of this Act apply to a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2) as if the provision was a preserved collective State agreement in operation.          (3)    Subject to subclause (4), a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2) prevails over any other redundancy provision included in any other instrument that would otherwise have effect.          (4)    A party continues to be bound by a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2), in relation to an employee who is bound by the redundancy provision, until the earliest of the following:               (a)    the end of the period of 12 months from the time that the preserved collective State agreement ceased operating;               (b)    the time when the employee ceases to be employed by the employer;               (c)    the time when a workplace agreement comes into operation in relation to the employee and the employer.          (5)    In this clause: instrument means any of the following:               (a)    a pre‑reform certified agreement (within the meaning of Schedule 7);               (b)    a notional agreement preserving State awards;               (c)    an award. redundancy provision means any of the following kinds of provisions:               (a)    a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (b)    a provision that is incidental to a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (c)    a machinery provision that is in respect of a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment; where the termination is at the initiative of the employer and on the grounds of operational requirements, or because the employer is insolvent. 21B  Notification of preservation of redundancy provisions in preserved collective State agreements          (1)    This clause applies if the parties to a preserved collective State agreement will, under clause 21A, continue to be bound by one or more redundancy provisions included in the agreement.          (2)    The Commission must issue a copy of the order terminating the agreement to:               (a)    the employer who will be bound by the redundancy provision or the redundancy provisions; and               (b)    any organisation that will be bound by the redundancy provision or the redundancy provisions.          (3)    The order must:               (a)    identify the redundancy provision or the redundancy provisions; and               (b)    state that the parties to the agreement will be bound by the provision or provisions; and               (c)    specify the date that is 12 months after the time that the order terminating the agreement takes effect; and               (d)    state that the parties will remain bound by the provision or provisions until that date, or an earlier date in accordance with subclause 21A(4). 21C  Employer must notify employees of preserved redundancy provisions in preserved collective State agreements          (1)    An employer that has, under clause 21B, received a copy of an order terminating a preserved collective State agreement must take reasonable steps to ensure that all employees who are bound by the agreement immediately before the agreement ceases operating are, within 21 days of the employer receiving a copy of the order, given a copy of the order.          (2)    Subclause (1) is a civil remedy provision for the purpose of this clause. Note:   Division 3 of Part 14 contains other provisions relevant to civil remedies.          (3)    The Court may order a person who has contravened the civil remedy provision to pay a pecuniary penalty. Note:   Division 3 of Part 14 contains other provisions relevant to civil remedies.          (4)    The penalty cannot be more than 300 penalty units for a body corporate or 60 penalty units in other cases.          (5)    An application for an order under subclause (3) in relation to a preserved collective State agreement may be made by the following persons:               (a)    an employee who is bound by the agreement immediately before the agreement ceases operating;               (b)    an organisation of employees that is bound by the agreement immediately before the agreement ceases operating;               (c)    an organisation of employees that is entitled, under its eligibility rules, to represent the industrial interests of an employee referred to in paragraph (a) and has been requested by the employee to apply for the order on the employee’s behalf;               (d)    a workplace inspector. 21D  Preservation of redundancy provisions in preserved individual State agreements in certain circumstances          (1)    This clause applies if a preserved individual State agreement is terminated, on application by the employer in relation to the agreement, by the Commission in accordance with subsection 170VM(3) of the pre‑reform Act. Note:   Subsection 170VM(3) of the pre‑reform Act applies because of subclause 21(3) of this Schedule and paragraph 17(1)(c) of Schedule 7.          (2)    The employer and the employee in relation to the preserved individual State agreement continue to be bound, immediately after the agreement ceases operating, by any redundancy provision that was included in the agreement as if the agreement had continued operating.       (2A)    Parts 6 and 14 of this Act apply to a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2) as if the provision was a preserved individual State agreement in operation.          (3)    Subject to subclause (4), a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2) prevails over any other redundancy provision included in any other instrument that would otherwise have effect.          (4)    The employer continues to be bound by a redundancy provision referred to in subclause (2), in relation to the employee, until the earliest of the following:               (a)    the end of the period of 12 months from the time that the preserved individual State agreement ceases operating;               (b)    the time when the employee ceases to be employed by the employer;               (c)    the time when a workplace agreement comes into operation in relation to the employee and the employer.          (5)    In this clause: instrument means any of the following:               (a)    a pre‑reform certified agreement (within the meaning of Schedule 7);               (b)    a notional agreement preserving State awards;               (c)    an award. redundancy provision means any of the following kinds of provisions:               (a)    a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (b)    a provision that is incidental to a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (c)    a machinery provision that is in respect of a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment; where the termination is at the initiative of the employer and on the grounds of operational requirements, or because the employer is insolvent. 21E  Notification of preservation of redundancy provisions          (1)    This clause applies if the employer and the employee in relation to a preserved individual State agreement will, under clause 21D, continue to be bound by one or more redundancy provisions included in the agreement.          (2)    The determination issued by the Commission under subsection 170VM(4) of the pre‑reform Act must:               (a)    identify the redundancy provision or the redundancy provisions; and               (b)    state that the employer and the employee in relation to the preserved individual State agreement will be bound by the provision or provisions; and               (c)    specify the date that is 12 months after the time that the determination terminating the agreement takes effect; and               (d)    state that the employer and the employee will remain bound by the provision or provisions until that date, or an earlier date in accordance with subclause 21D(4). 23  After Part 5 of Schedule 9 Insert: Part 5A—Transmission of preserved redundancy provisions 27A  Transmission of preserved redundancy provisions          (1)    If:               (a)    immediately before the time of transmission:                     (i)    the old employer; and                    (ii)    an employee;                        were bound, under clause 6A or 20A of Schedule 7, clause 21A or 21D of Schedule 8, or because of a previous application of this clause, by a redundancy provision that was previously included in an agreement that was terminated; and               (b)    the employee is a transferring employee; the new employer is bound by the redundancy provision in relation to the transferring employee by force of this clause. Note:   The new employer must notify the transferring employee and lodge a copy of the notice with the Employment Advocate (see clauses 29A and 29B).          (2)    Subject to subclause (3), the redundancy provision prevails over any other redundancy provision included in any other instrument that would otherwise have effect, to the extent of any inconsistency. Period for which new employer remains bound          (3)    The new employer remains bound by the redundancy provision in relation to the transferring employee, by force of this clause, until the earliest of the following:               (a)    the end of the period of 12 months from the time that the agreement referred to in paragraph (1)(a) ceased operating;               (b)    the time when the transferring employee ceases to be employed by the new employer;               (c)    the time when a workplace agreement comes into operation in relation to the new employer and the transferring employee. Old employer’s rights and obligations that arose before time of transmission not affected          (4)    This clause does not affect the rights and obligations of the old employer that arose before the time of transmission. Definitions          (5)    In this clause: instrument means any of the following:               (a)    a workplace agreement;               (b)    a pre‑reform certified agreement (within the meaning of Schedule 7);               (c)    a preserved State agreement;               (d)    a notional agreement preserving State awards;               (e)    an award;                (f)    a transitional award (within the meaning of Schedule 6). redundancy provision means any of the following kinds of provisions:               (a)    a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (b)    a provision that is incidental to a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment;               (c)    a machinery provision that is in respect of a provision relating to redundancy pay in relation to a termination of employment; where the termination is at the initiative of the employer and on the grounds of operational requirements, or because the employer is insolvent. 24  After clause 29 of Schedule 9 Insert: 29A  Informing transferring employees about transmission of preserved redundancy provisions          (1)    This clause applies if an employer is bound, by force of clause 27A, by one or more redundancy provisions (within the meaning of that clause) in relation to a transferring employee.          (2)    Within 28 days after the transferring employee starts being employed by the employer, the employer must take reasonable steps to give the transferring employee a written notice that complies with subclause (3). Note:   This is a civil remedy provision, see clause 31.          (3)    The notice must:               (a)    identify the redundancy provision or the redundancy provisions; and               (b)    state that the employer is bound by the provision or provisions; and               (c)    specify the date that is 12 months after the time that the agreement that included the provision or provisions ceased operating; and               (d)    state that the employer will remain bound by the provision or provisions until that date, or an earlier date in accordance with subclause 27A(3).          (4)    Subclause (2) does not apply if a workplace agreement comes into operation in relation to the employer and the transferring employee within 14 days of the time of transmission. 29B  Lodging copy of notice about preserved redundancy provisions with Employment Advocate          (1)    If an employer gives a notice under clause 29A to a transferring employee, the employer must lodge a copy of the notice with the Employment Advocate within the period specified in subclause (2). The copy must be lodged in accordance with subclause (3). Note 1:  This is a civil remedy provision, see clause 31. Note 2:  Sections 137.1 and 137.2 of the Criminal Code create offences for providing false or misleading information or documents.          (2)    The notice must be lodged within 14 days after the day specified in paragraph (a) or (b):               (a)    if the employer gives a notice to an employee in respect of a redundancy provision that was included in a pre‑reform AWA or a preserved individual State agreement—the day on which that notice is given; or               (b)    if the employer gives one or more notices to one or more employees in respect of a redundancy provision that was included in a pre‑reform certified agreement or a preserved collective State agreement—the earliest day on which a notice was given. Lodgment with Employment Advocate          (3)    A notice is lodged with the Employment Advocate in accordance with this subclause only if it is actually received by the Employment Advocate. Note:   This means that section 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (to the extent that it deals with the time of service of documents) does not apply to lodgment of a notice. 25  Subclause 30(1) of Schedule 9 After “29”, insert “or 29B”. 26  Subclause 30(2) of Schedule 9 After “29”, insert “or 29B (as the case requires)”. 27  Subclause 30(3) of Schedule 9 After “29”, insert “or 29B”. 28  At the end of subclause 31(1) of Schedule 9 Add:             ; (c)    subclause 29A(2);               (d)    subclause 29B(1). 29  Subclause 31(4) of Schedule 9 After “an instrument”, insert “, or in relation to a preserved redundancy provision that was previously included in an instrument,”. 30  Subclause 31(4) of Schedule 9 (table items 2 and 4) After “bound by the agreement”, insert “or the redundancy provision”. 31  Application The amendments made by this Schedule apply to agreements that are terminated after this item commences. (11)  Page 10 (after line 11), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 4—Amendments relating to stand downs Workplace Relations Act 1996 1  Subsection 4(1) Insert: authorised stand down means a stand down of an employee that is authorised as mentioned in subsection 691B(1). 2  Subsection 13(1) (after table item 6) Insert: 6A Division 7 of Part 12 Stand downs Section 691C 3  At the end of paragraph 183(1)(b) Add:                   (iv)    any hours in the week when the employee is stood down (but only if the stand down is an authorised stand down); 4  At the end of Part 12 Add: Division 7—Stand downs 691A  Employer may stand down employees in certain circumstances          (1)    This section applies if:               (a)    an employee employed by an employer cannot usefully be employed during a period because of a particular circumstance; and               (b)    that circumstance is:                     (i)    a strike; or                    (ii)    a breakdown of machinery; or                   (iii)    a stoppage of work for any cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible; and               (c)    either:                     (i)    there is no contract of employment, and no industrial instrument, that binds the employer in respect of the employment of the employee and that contains provision for the standing down of the employee during that period because of that circumstance; or                    (ii)    a contract of employment, or industrial instrument, that binds the employer in respect of the employment of the employee contains provision for the standing down of the employee during that period because of that circumstance, but the employer’s right to stand down the employee is dependent on the employer having to apply to the Commission, a State industrial authority or another person or body for an order or determination (however described) authorising the employer to stand down the employee.          (2)    If this section applies, the employer:               (a)    may stand down the employee during the period referred to in paragraph (1)(a) because of the circumstance referred to in that paragraph; and               (b)    if the employer stands down the employee under paragraph (a) of this subsection—may deduct payment for the period during which the employee is stood down.          (3)    A period during which an employee is stood down under subsection (2) does not break the employee’s continuity of service.          (4)    A period during which an employee is stood down under subsection (2) counts as service for all purposes.          (5)    A provision of a contract of employment or an industrial instrument that provides as mentioned in subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) has no effect. However, this section does not otherwise affect the operation of any provision of a contract of employment or industrial instrument that provides for the standing down of employees.          (6)    In this section: industrial instrument means any of the following:               (a)    a workplace agreement;               (b)    an award;               (c)    a pre‑reform AWA;               (d)    a pre‑reform certified agreement (within the meaning of Schedule 7);               (e)    a preserved State agreement;                (f)    a notional agreement preserving State awards;               (g)    a workplace determination;               (h)    an employment agreement (within the meaning of Division 12 of Part 21);                (i)    an exceptional matters order (within the meaning of Schedule 7);                (j)    a section 170MX award (within the meaning of Schedule 7);               (k)    an old IR agreement (within the meaning of Schedule 7). 691B  Prohibition of unauthorised stand downs          (1)    An employer must not stand down an employee from his or her employment if the stand down is not authorised by:               (a)    subsection 691A(2); or               (b)    a provision of a contract of employment, or an industrial instrument (within the meaning of section 691A), that is binding on the employer in respect of the employment of the employee (other than a provision that is rendered of no effect by subsection 691A(5)). Note 1:  Compliance with this subsection is dealt with as follows: (a)        the model dispute resolution process applies (see subsection (2)); (b)        the Court may grant an injunction (see subsection (3)); (c)        the compliance provisions of Part 14 apply. Note 2:  If the standing down of an employee is not authorised as mentioned in this subsection, the employee may recover any lost wages by taking appropriate enforcement action (whether under this Act or otherwise).          (2)    The model dispute resolution process (other than section 697) applies to a dispute under subsection (1). Note:   The model dispute resolution process is set out in Part 13.          (3)    The Court, or the Federal Magistrates Court, on application by an employee who has been stood down or by an inspector, may grant an injunction requiring the employer of the employee to cease contravening (or not to contravene) subsection (1). 691C  Extraterritorial extension          (1)    This Division, and the rest of this Act so far as it relates to this Division, extend:               (a)    to an employee outside Australia who meets any of the conditions in this section; and               (b)    to the employee’s employer (whether the employer is in or outside Australia); and               (c)    to acts, omissions, matters and things relating to the employee or the employee’s employment (whether those acts, omissions, matters or things are in or outside Australia). Note:   In this context, Australia includes the Territory of Christmas Island, the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands and the coastal sea. See section 15B and paragraph 17(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. Employee in Australia’s exclusive economic zone          (2)    One condition is that the employee is in Australia’s exclusive economic zone and either:               (a)    is an employee of an Australian employer and is not prescribed by the regulations as an employee to whom this subsection does not apply; or               (b)    is an employee prescribed by the regulations as an employee to whom this subsection applies. Note:   The regulations may prescribe the employee by reference to a class. See subsection 13(3) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. On Australia’s continental shelf outside exclusive economic zone          (3)    Another condition is that the employee:               (a)    is outside the outer limits of Australia’s exclusive economic zone, but is in, on or over a part of Australia’s continental shelf prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection, in connection with the exploration of the continental shelf or the exploitation of its natural resources; and               (b)    meets the requirements that are prescribed by the regulations for that part. Note:   The regulations may prescribe different requirements relating to different parts of Australia’s continental shelf. The regulations may need to do so to give effect to Australia’s international obligations. Outside Australia’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf          (4)    Another condition is that the employee:               (a)    is neither in Australia’s exclusive economic zone nor in, on or over a part of Australia’s continental shelf described in paragraph (3)(a); and               (b)    is an Australian‑based employee of an Australian employer; and               (c)    is not prescribed by the regulations as an employee to whom this subsection does not apply.          (5)    In this section: this Act includes the Registration and Accountability of Organisations Schedule and regulations made under it. 5  Section 717 (at the end of the definition of applicable provision) Add:     ; and (e)    subsection 691B(1) (prohibition of unauthorised stand downs). 6  Subsection 718(1) (at the end of the table) Add: 8 subsection 691B(1) (prohibition of unauthorised stand downs) (a) an employee to whom subsection 691B(1) applies; (b) an inspector 7  Subsection 718(2) Omit “and (7)”, substitute “, (7) and (8)”. 8  After Division 7 of Part 21 Insert: Division 7A—Stand downs 880A  Additional effect of Act—stand downs                   Without affecting its operation apart from this section, Division 7 of Part 12 also has effect in relation to the employment of any employee in Victoria, and for this purpose:               (a)    each reference in that Division to an employer (within the meaning of that Division) is to be read as a reference to an employer (within the meaning of this Division) in Victoria; and               (b)    each reference in that Division to an employee (within the meaning of that Division) is to be read as a reference to an employee (within the meaning of this Division) in Victoria; and               (c)    each reference in that Division to employment (within the meaning of that Division) is to be read as a reference to the employment of an employee (within the meaning of this Division) in Victoria. 9  Section 891 Repeal the section. 10  After paragraph 89(1)(a) of Schedule 6 Insert:             (aa)    section 691A (as applied by section 880A); and 11  After paragraph 95(a) of Schedule 6 Insert:             (aa)    section 691A (as applied by section 880A); and 12  After paragraph 102(a) of Schedule 6 Insert:             (aa)    section 691A (as applied by section 880A); and (12)  Page 10 (after line 11), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 5—Amendments relating to the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard Workplace Relations Act 1996 1  Subsection 189(1) Repeal the subsection, substitute: APCS applies and contains frequency of payment provisions          (1)    If:               (a)    the employment of an employee is covered by an APCS; and               (b)    the APCS contains frequency of payment provisions that apply in relation to the employee’s employment; then:               (c)    if a workplace agreement that covers the employment of the employee contains frequency of payment provisions:                     (i)    that apply in relation to the employee’s employment; and                    (ii)    that provide for payments in respect of periods of one month or less;                        the employer must comply with those provisions in relation to the employee; or               (d)    if paragraph (c) does not apply, and the employee’s contract of employment contains frequency of payment provisions:                     (i)    that apply in relation to the employee’s employment; and                    (ii)    that provide for payments in respect of periods of one month or less;                        the employer must comply with those provisions in relation to the employee; or               (e)    if neither paragraph (c) nor (d) applies—the employer must comply with the frequency of payment provisions of the APCS in relation to the employee. 2  After subsection 226(1) Insert:       (1A)    An employer only contravenes subsection (1) if the employer requests or requires an employee to work more than the hours mentioned in subsection (1), and the employee works those hours. 3  Section 228 Before “In”, insert “(1)”. 4  Section 228 (at the end of the definition of shift worker) Add: Note:   Subsection (2) enables regulations to be made providing that an employee belonging to a specified class is not a shift worker. 5  At the end of section 228 Add:          (2)    The regulations may provide that an employee:               (a)    who is covered by paragraph (a) or (b) of the definition of shift worker in subsection (1); and               (b)    who belongs to a class specified in the regulations; is not a shift worker for the purposes of this Division.          (3)    Without limiting the way in which a class of employees may be described for the purposes of regulations made under subsection (2), the class may be described by reference to one or more of the following:               (a)    a particular industry;               (b)    a particular kind of work;               (c)    a particular type of employment;               (d)    a particular type of shift work (whether described by reference to the organisation or allocation of shifts or otherwise). 6  Paragraph 229(1)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute:               (a)    start with:                     (i)    the specified number of hours; or                    (ii)    if the specified number of hours is more than 38 hours—38 hours; 7  After subsection 229(4) Insert: Certain types of leave not to count as service       (4A)    For the purposes of subparagraphs (1)(b)(i) and (4)(a)(ii), a period of authorised unpaid leave or unauthorised leave does not count as service in relation to an employee except:               (a)    as expressly provided by:                     (i)    a term or condition of the employee’s employment; or                    (ii)    a law, or an instrument in force under a law, of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or               (b)    as prescribed by the regulations. Note:   For whether leave guaranteed under this Part counts as service, see subsections 238(2) (annual leave), 260(2) (paid personal leave), 261(2) (unpaid carer’s leave) and 316(2) (parental leave). 8  Subsection 229(5) (note 3) Repeal the note. 9  Paragraph 233(1)(c) Omit all the words after “no less than”, substitute “the rate that, at the time the election is made, is the employee’s basic periodic rate of pay (expressed as an hourly rate); and”. 10  Subsection 235(1) Omit all the words after “a period,”, substitute “the employee must be paid a rate for each hour (pro‑rated for part hours) of annual leave taken that is no less than the rate that, immediately before the period begins, is the employee’s basic periodic rate of pay (expressed as an hourly rate).”. 11  Subsection 235(2) Omit all the words after “a particular time,”, substitute “the employee must be paid a rate for each hour (pro‑rated for part hours) of the employee’s untaken accrued annual leave that is no less than the rate that, immediately before that time, is the employee’s basic periodic rate of pay (expressed as an hourly rate).”. 12  At the end of section 236 Add: Entitlement to leave for all nominal hours in a day also extends to other hours on that day          (7)    If:               (a)    an employee to whom subparagraph 229(1)(a)(ii) applies is entitled to take annual leave on a particular day; and               (b)    the entitlement covers all the hours (or part hours) on that day that would count towards the nominal hours worked by the employee in the week that includes that day; the employer is taken to have authorised the employee to be absent from work for any other hours (or part hours) on that day that the employee would otherwise have worked. Example:               Bianca is employed by BBB Bakers Pty Ltd. She works 40 hours per week (consisting of 38 hours plus 2 reasonable additional hours).              Under subsection 232(2), Bianca is entitled to accrue paid annual leave of 1/13 of her nominal hours worked for each completed 4 week period of continuous service with BBB Bakers. Because of subparagraph 229(1)(a)(ii), Bianca’s nominal hours worked in a week are capped at 38 hours. If Bianca works her normal hours for a 12 month period, she will accrue 152 hours of paid annual leave.              The above subsection ensures that Bianca will be able to be absent from work for 4 full 40 hour weeks. Bianca’s absence for the additional 8 hours will not be paid leave, and will not count as service, but it will not break her continuity of service (see subsection (8)).          (8)    An absence that is taken by subsection (7) to have been authorised:               (a)    is not annual leave; and               (b)    does not break the employee’s continuity of service; and               (c)    does not otherwise count as service.          (9)    For the purposes of subsection (7), if a shift (or other period of work) occurs partly on 1 day and partly on the next day, the shift (or other period of work) is taken to be a day and the remaining parts of the days are taken not to be part of the day.        (10)    For the purposes of subsection (7), the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following:               (a)    determining what hours (or part hours) on a particular day would count towards the nominal hours worked by an employee in a week;               (b)    determining what other hours (or part hours) on a particular day would be hours (or part hours) that an employee would otherwise have worked. 13  Section 240 Insert: basic periodic rate of pay has the meaning given by section 178. Note:   See also section 243. 14  Paragraph 241(1)(a) Repeal the paragraph, substitute:               (a)    start with:                     (i)    the specified number of hours; or                    (ii)    if the specified number of hours is more than 38 hours—38 hours; 15  After subsection 241(4) Insert: Certain types of leave not to count as service       (4A)    For the purposes of subparagraphs (1)(b)(i) and (4)(a)(ii), a period of authorised unpaid leave or unauthorised leave does not count as service in relation to an employee except:               (a)    as expressly provided by:                     (i)    a term or condition of the employee’s employment; or                    (ii)    a law, or an instrument in force under a law, of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or               (b)    as prescribed by the regulations. Note:   For whether leave guaranteed under this Part counts as service, see subsections 238(2) (annual leave), 260(2) (paid personal leave), 261(2) (unpaid carer’s leave) and 316(2) (parental leave). 16  Subsection 241(5) (note 3) Repeal the note. 17  Section 243 Repeal the section, substitute: 243  Regulations may prescribe different definitions for piece rate employees                   The regulations may prescribe:               (a)    a different definition of basic periodic rate of pay for the purposes of the application of this Division in relation to piece rate employees; and               (b)    a different definition of nominal hours worked for the purposes of the application of this Division in relation to piece rate employees. 18  After section 245 Insert: 245A  Entitlement to cash out an amount of paid personal/carer’s leave          (1)    This section applies to an employee if more than the protected amount of paid personal/carer’s leave is credited to the employee.          (2)    The employee is entitled to forgo an entitlement to take any or all of the amount of paid personal/carer’s leave credited to the employee that exceeds the protected amount of paid personal/carer’s leave if:               (a)    a provision in a workplace agreement binding the employee and the employer entitles the employee to forgo the entitlement to the amount of paid personal/carer’s leave; and               (b)    the employee gives the employer a written election to forgo the amount of paid personal/carer’s leave; and               (c)    a provision in a workplace agreement binding the employee and the employer entitles the employee to receive pay in lieu of the amount of paid personal/carer’s leave at a rate that is no less than the rate that, at the time the election is made, is the employee’s basic periodic rate of pay (expressed as an hourly rate); and               (d)    the employer authorises the employee to forgo the amount of paid personal/carer’s leave. Note:   If, under this section, an employee forgoes an entitlement to take an amount of paid personal/carer’s leave, the employee’s employer may deduct that amount from the amount of accrued paid personal/carer’s leave credited to the employee.          (3)    For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), the protected amount of paid personal/carer’s leave for the employee is 3/52 of the number of nominal hours worked by the employee for the employer during:               (a)    a continuous period of 12 months of service with the employer ending immediately before the day on which the employee makes an election under paragraph (2)(b); or               (b)    a sequence of periods totalling 12 months of service with the employer, the last of which ends immediately before the day on which the employee makes an election under paragraph (2)(b). Note:   The protected amount of paid personal/carer’s leave for an employee whose nominal hours worked for an employer each week over a continuous period of 12 months service with the employer are 38 hours would be 114 hours (which would be equivalent to 15 days of paid personal/carer’s leave for that employee).          (4)    An employer must not:               (a)    require an employee to forgo an entitlement to take an amount of paid personal/carer’s leave; or               (b)    exert undue influence or undue pressure on an employee in relation to the making of a decision by the employee whether or not to forgo an entitlement to take an amount of paid personal/carer’s leave.          (5)    If, under this section, an employee forgoes an entitlement to take an amount of paid personal/carer’s leave, the employer must, within a reasonable period, give the employee the amount of pay that the employee is entitled to receive in lieu of the amount of paid personal/carer’s leave. 19  Section 247 Omit all the words after “a period,”, substitute “the employee must be paid a rate for each hour (pro‑rated for part hours) of paid personal/carer’s leave taken that is no less than the rate that, immediately before the period begins, is the employee’s basic periodic rate of pay (expressed as an hourly rate).”. 20  After section 247 Insert: 247A  Entitlement to leave for all nominal hours in a day also extends to other hours on that day          (1)    If:               (a)    an employee to whom subparagraph 241(1)(a)(ii) applies is entitled to take paid personal/carer’s leave on a particular day; and               (b)    the entitlement covers all the hours (or part hours) on that day that would count towards the nominal hours worked by the employee in the week that includes that day; the employer is taken to have authorised the employee to be absent from work for any other hours (or part hours) on that day that the employee would otherwise have worked. Example:               Tina is employed by Terrific Videos Pty Ltd. She works 8 hours a day for 5 days a week, giving a weekly total of 40 hours per week (consisting of 38 hours plus 2 reasonable additional hours).              Under subsection 246(2), Tina is entitled to accrue paid personal/carer’s leave of 1/26 of her nominal hours worked for each completed 4 week period of continuous service with Terrific Videos. Because of subparagraph 241(1)(a)(ii), Tina’s nominal hours worked in a week are capped at 38 hours. If Tina works her normal hours for a 12 month period, she will accrue 76 hours of paid personal/carer’s leave.              The above subsection ensures that Tina will be able (subject to the requirements of this Division relating to entitlement to paid personal/carer’s leave) to be absent from work for 10 full 8 hour days. Tina’s absence for the additional 4 hours over those 10 days will not be paid leave, and will not count as service, but it will not break her continuity of service (see subsection (2)).          (2)    An absence that is taken by subsection (1) to have been authorised:               (a)    is not paid personal/carer’s leave; and               (b)    does not break the employee’s continuity of service; and               (c)    does not otherwise count as service.          (3)    For the purposes of subsection (1), if a shift (or other period of work) occurs partly on 1 day and partly on the next day, the shift (or other period of work) is taken to be a day and the remaining parts of the days are taken not to be part of the day.          (4)    For the purposes of subsection (1), the regulations may make provision for either or both of the following:               (a)    determining what hours (or part hours) on a particular day would count towards the nominal hours worked by an employee in a week;               (b)    determining what other hours (or part hours) on a particular day would be hours (or part hours) that an employee would otherwise have worked. 21  Section 259 Omit all the words after “a period,”, substitute “the employee must be paid a rate for each hour (pro‑rated for part hours) of compassionate leave taken that is no less than the rate that, immediately before the period begins, is the employee’s basic periodic rate of pay (expressed as an hourly rate).”. 22  Section 262 Before “This”, insert “(1)”. 23  At the end of section 262 Add:          (2)    This Division establishes minimum entitlements and so is intended to supplement, and not to override, entitlements under other Commonwealth legislation. 24  Section 263 Insert: basic periodic rate of pay has the meaning given by section 178. Note:   See also section 264A. 25  Section 263 (definition of employee) Omit “section 262”, substitute “subsection 262(1)”. 26  Section 263 Insert: piece rate employee means an employee who is paid a piece rate of pay within the meaning of section 178. 27  At the end of Subdivision A of Division 6 of Part 7 Add: 264A  Regulations may prescribe different definition for piece rate employees                   The regulations may prescribe a different definition of basic periodic rate of pay for the purposes of the application of this Division in relation to piece rate employees. 28  At the end of subsection 268(2) Add: Note:   An employer may ask an employee to give the employer a statement from a medical practitioner as to the employee’s fitness to work (see subsections 274(2) and (2A)). 29  Subsection 268(3) Omit all the words after “a period,”, substitute “the employee must be paid a rate for each hour (pro‑rated for part hours) of paid leave taken that is no less than the rate that, immediately before the period begins, is the employee’s basic periodic rate of pay (expressed as an hourly rate).”. 30  After subsection 274(2) Insert:       (2A)    If the employee takes paid leave under subparagraph 268(2)(b)(i) or (ii) during the period of 6 weeks before the expected date of birth, the employer may, at any time during the period of leave, ask the employee to give the employer a medical certificate from a medical practitioner containing a statement of the medical practitioner’s opinion of whether the employee is fit to work. 31  At the end of subsection 318(3) Add: Note:   For the purposes of subsection (3), employer, employee and employment have their ordinary meaning. See sections 5, 6 and 7 and Schedule 2. 32  After paragraph 2(1)(g) of Schedule 2 Insert:             (ga)    a reference in Division 7 of Part 7 so far as the reference relates to Division 6 of Part 7 as applied by section 689. 33  After paragraph 3(1)(c) of Schedule 2 Insert:             (ca)    a reference in Division 7 of Part 7 so far as the reference relates to Division 6 of Part 7 as applied by section 689. 34  After paragraph 4(1)(c) of Schedule 2 Insert:             (ca)    a reference in Division 7 of Part 7 so far as the reference relates to Division 6 of Part 7 as applied by section 689. 35  Saving provision—annual leave The amendment of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made by item 6 does not affect any entitlement to annual leave that an employee had accrued before the commencement of that item. 36  Saving provision—paid personal/carer’s leave The amendment of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made by item 14 does not affect any entitlement to paid personal/carer’s leave that an employee had accrued before the commencement of that item. (13)  Page 10 (after line 11), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 6—Other amendments Workplace Relations Act 1996 1  Paragraph 165(1)(e) After “purposes of” (first occurring), insert “this paragraph or”. 2  After subsection 165(1) Insert:       (1A)    To avoid doubt, a disclosure in accordance with subsection (1) of personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988) is taken, for the purposes of that Act, to be authorised by law. 3  At the end of section 170 Add:          (5)    To avoid doubt, a disclosure in accordance with this section of personal information (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988) is taken, for the purposes of that Act, to be authorised by law. 4  Subsection 337(5) Repeal the subsection, substitute:          (5)    If a waiver has been made under section 338 in relation to the workplace agreement:               (a)    subsection (1) and paragraph (3)(b) do not apply if, before the time the waiver was made, the employer had taken reasonable steps to ensure that all eligible employees in relation to the agreement (as at that time) either had, or had ready access to, the agreement in writing; and               (b)    subsection (2) does not apply if, before the time the waiver was made, the employer had taken reasonable steps to ensure that all eligible employees in relation to the agreement (as at that time) had been given an information statement in relation to the agreement that complies with subsection (4). 5  At the end of section 338 Add: Note:   For the effect of the waiver, see subsection 337(5). Note:                The heading to section 338 is replaced by the heading “Employees may waive 7‑day period”. 6  At the end of Division 5 of Part 8 Add: 346A  Employer to provide copy of lodged AWA to employee          (1)    As soon as practicable after an employer lodges an AWA with the Employment Advocate, the employer must give a copy of the AWA to the employee whose employment is subject to the AWA.          (2)    Subsection (1) is a civil remedy provision. Note:   See Division 11 for provisions on enforcement. 7  After subsection 347(2) Insert:       (2A)    If:               (a)    an employer and an employee or employees of the employer, or an organisation of employees, make a workplace agreement (within the meaning of section 333); and               (b)    the employer does not lodge that workplace agreement (the unlodged agreement), but subsequently lodges a declaration under subsection 344(2); and               (c)    the declaration purports to identify as parties to a workplace agreement:                     (i)    the employer who lodged the declaration; and                    (ii)    at least one employee, class of employees or organisation; and               (d)    the employer and the other parties identified in the declaration are parties to the unlodged agreement; and               (e)    a document that is different from the unlodged agreement is attached to the declaration; then:                (f)    the unlodged agreement comes into operation as a workplace agreement at the time the declaration is lodged; and               (g)    the document that is attached to the declaration does not come into operation as a workplace agreement.                8  Subsection 370(5) Repeal the subsection, substitute:          (5)    If a waiver has been made under section 371 in relation to the variation to the workplace agreement:               (a)    subsection (1) and paragraph (3)(b) do not apply if, before the time the waiver was made, the employer had taken reasonable steps to ensure that all eligible employees in relation to the agreement (as at that time) either had, or had ready access to, the variation in writing; and               (b)    subsection (2) does not apply if, before the time the waiver was made, the employer had taken reasonable steps to ensure that all eligible employees in relation to the agreement (as at that time) had been given an information statement in relation to the variation that complies with subsection (4). 9  At the end of section 371 Add: Note:   For the effect of the waiver, see subsection 370(5). Note:                The heading to section 371 is replaced by the heading “Employees may waive 7‑day period”. 10  After paragraph 392(2)(b) Insert:             (ba)    in the case of an AWA—the employee whose employment is subject to the agreement; 11  After paragraph 393(2)(b) Insert:             (ba)    in the case of an AWA—the employee whose employment is subject to the agreement; 12  After paragraph 407(2)(j) Insert:              (ja)    for subsection 346A(1)—30 penalty units; 13  At the end of subsection 482(1) Add “, whether or not the ballot is completed”. 14  At the end of subsection 482(2) Add “, whether or not the ballot is completed”. 15  Subsection 482(3) Omit “have effect”, substitute “are, in relation to completed ballots,”. 16  After paragraph 483(1)(a) Insert:             (aa)    the ballot has been completed; and Note:                The heading to section 483 is altered by inserting “completed” after “of”. 17  Section 611 (after paragraph (a) of the definition of public holiday) Insert:             (aa)    a day that, under (or in accordance with a procedure under) a law of a State or Territory, is substituted for a day referred to in paragraph (a); and 18  Section 611 (subparagraph (b)(i) of the definition of public holiday) Repeal the subparagraph. 19  At the end of section 710 Add:        ; or (c)    the matter is the subject of proceedings or has already been settled as a result of proceedings, whether before a court or another body, under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory relating to the prevention of discrimination or to equal opportunity. 20  Subparagraph 846(2)(g)(i) Omit “5”, substitute “10”. 21  Subparagraph 846(2)(g)(ii) Omit “25”, substitute “50”. 22  Paragraph 864(1)(b) Repeal the paragraph, substitute:               (b)    is:                     (i)    of a rate provision; or                    (ii)    of a casual loading provision; or                   (iii)    of a frequency of payment provision. 23  Subsection 864(4) Insert: frequency of payment provision has the same meaning as in Division 2 of Part 7. 24  After paragraph 3(1)(h) of Schedule 2 Insert:             (ha)    a reference in Division 2 of Part 4 of Schedule 7. 25  Paragraph 72H(2)(c) of Schedule 6 Omit all the words after “apply”, substitute “according to its terms, to the transferring transitional employee’s employment with the new transitional employer;”. 26  Subclause 72H(2) of Schedule 6 Omit “the transmitted award, to the extent to which it relates to the transferring transitional employee’s employment with the new transitional employer, prevails over that certified agreement to the extent of any inconsistency with that certified agreement.”, substitute “the certified agreement does not apply to the transferring transitional employee.”. 27  Paragraph 77(3)(a) of Schedule 6 Repeal the paragraph, substitute:               (a)    the matter referred to in paragraph (1)(g) does not include one or both of the following:                     (i)    special maternity leave (within the meaning of section 265);                    (ii)    the entitlement under section 268 to transfer to a safe job or to take paid leave; and 28  Paragraph 97(4)(a) of Schedule 6 Repeal the paragraph, substitute:               (a)    the matter referred to in paragraph (2)(ac) does not include one or both of the following:                     (i)    special maternity leave (within the meaning of section 265);                    (ii)    the entitlement under section 268 to transfer to a safe job or to take paid leave; and 29  Clause 1 of Schedule 7 Insert: transitional award has the same meaning as in Schedule 6. 30  At the end of clause 2 of Schedule 7 Add: Note:   Clause 5 of this Schedule, section 16 and Schedule 8 may also affect the terms and conditions of employment of an employee in relation to whom a pre‑reform certified agreement is in operation. 31  Subclause 5(1) of Schedule 7 Repeal the subclause, substitute:          (1)    While a pre‑reform certified agreement is in operation, it prevails, to the extent of any inconsistency, over:               (a)    a preserved State agreement; or               (b)    a notional agreement preserving State awards. 32  At the end of clause 17 of Schedule 7 Add: Note:   Clause 19 of this Schedule, section 16 and Schedule 8 may also affect the terms and conditions of employment of an employee in relation to whom a pre‑reform AWA is in operation. 33  Paragraph 19(d) of Schedule 7 Repeal the paragraph, substitute:               (d)    to the extent of any inconsistency, a notional agreement preserving State awards; 34  Before clause 22 of Schedule 7 Insert: Division 1—Continuing operation of section 170MX awards 35  Clause 22 of Schedule 7 Repeal the clause, substitute: 22  Application of Division                   This Division applies to a section 170MX award if:               (a)    the employer in relation to the section 170MX award:                     (i)    is an employer (within the meaning of subsection 6(1)) at the reform commencement; or                    (ii)    becomes such an employer during the transitional period; and               (b)    the section 170MX award:                     (i)    was in force just before the reform commencement; or                    (ii)    was made after the reform commencement because of Part 8 of this Schedule. 36  Subclause 23(1) of Schedule 7 Omit “the award”, substitute “a section 170MX award to which this Division applies”. 37  Clause 24 of Schedule 7 Omit “the award”, substitute “a section 170MX award to which this Division applies”. 38  Clause 25 of Schedule 7 After “section 170MX award” (wherever occurring), insert “to which this Division applies”. 39  Subclause 26(1) of Schedule 7 After “section 170MX award”, insert “to which this Division applies”. 40  At the end of Part 4 of Schedule 7 Add: Division 2—Special rules for section 170MX awards that bind excluded employers 26A  Application of Division          (1)    This Division applies to a section 170MX award if:               (a)    the employer in relation to the section 170MX award is an excluded employer at the reform commencement; and               (b)    the section 170MX award:                     (i)    was in force just before the reform commencement; or                    (ii)    was made after the reform commencement because of Part 8 of this Schedule.          (2)    This Division applies to the section 170MX award while the employer remains an excluded employer during the transitional period. 26B  Cessation of section 170MX award          (1)    A section 170MX award to which this Division applies ceases to be in operation:               (a)    at the end of the transitional period; or               (b)    when it has been replaced by a State employment agreement.          (2)    To avoid doubt, this clause does not affect any rights accrued or liabilities incurred under a section 170MX award to which this Division applies before it ceases to be in operation.          (3)    To avoid doubt, if the employer in relation to a section 170MX award to which this Division applies becomes an employer (within the meaning of subsection 6(1)) at a time before the end of the transitional period, subclause (1) does not apply after that time. Note:   On and after that time, Division 1 of this Part applies to the section 170MX award.          (4)    Once a section 170MX award to which this Division applies has ceased operating, it can never operate again. 26C  Continuing operation of section 170MX awards—under old provisions          (1)    Subject to this Schedule, provisions of the pre‑reform Act (including regulations made under that Act) relating to section 170MX of the pre‑reform Act continue to apply in relation to a section 170MX award to which this Division applies, despite the repeals and amendments made by the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005.          (2)    Subclause (1) does not apply in relation to the following provisions of the pre‑reform Act:               (a)    section 170MN;               (b)    subsections 170MZ(4) and (5);               (c)    paragraph 170MZ(6)(b);               (d)    subsections 170MZ(7) and (8). 26D  Continuing operation of section 170MX awards—under new provisions                   Subject to this Schedule, the following provisions of this Act apply in relation to a section 170MX award to which this Division applies as if it were a workplace determination:               (a)    Part 6;               (b)    section 494;               (c)    subsection 451(2);               (d)    Part 14;               (e)    Part 15. 26E  Interaction of section 170MX awards with other instruments                   While a section 170MX award to which this Division applies is in operation, it prevails over a transitional award to the extent of any inconsistency. 41  Clause 30 of Schedule 7 Repeal the clause, substitute: 30  Relationships between pre‑reform agreements etc. and Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard          (1)    The Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard does not apply to an employee in relation to a matter if the employee’s employment is subject to any of the following instruments that deals with that matter in relation to the employee:               (a)    a pre‑reform certified agreement;               (b)    a pre‑reform AWA;               (c)    a section 170MX award.          (2)    In this clause:   matter means a matter referred to in subsection 171(2). Note:   This means that if a pre‑reform certified agreement, a pre‑reform AWA or a section 170MX award deals with basic rates of pay and casual loadings, maximum ordinary hours of work, annual leave, personal leave or parental leave and related entitlements in respect of an employee, the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard will not apply to the employee in respect of that matter.              However, if a pre‑reform certified agreement, a pre‑reform AWA or a section 170MX award does not deal with basic rates of pay and casual loadings, maximum ordinary hours of work, annual leave, personal leave or parental leave and related entitlements in respect of an employee, the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard will apply to the employee in respect of that matter. 42  At the end of clause 35 of Schedule 7 Insert: Note:   Section 898 may also affect the terms and conditions of employment of an employee in relation to whom a Victorian reference certified agreement is in operation. 43  At the end of clause 36 of Schedule 7 Insert: Note:   Section 898 may also affect the terms and conditions of employment of an employee in relation to whom a Victorian reference Division 3 pre‑reform certified agreement is in operation. 44  At the end of clause 37 of Schedule 7 Insert: Note:   Section 898 may also affect the terms and conditions of employment of an employee in relation to whom a Victorian reference AWA is in operation. 45  Clause 15E of Schedule 8 Repeal the clause, substitute: 15E  Relationship between preserved State agreements and Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard          (1)    The Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard does not apply to an employee in relation to a matter if the employee’s employment is subject to a preserved State agreement that deals with that matter in relation to the employee.          (2)    In this clause: matter means a matter referred to in subsection 171(2). Note:   This means that if a preserved State agreement deals with basic rates of pay and casual loadings, maximum ordinary hours of work, annual leave, personal leave or parental leave and related entitlements in respect of an employee, the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard will not apply to the employee in respect of that matter.              However, if a preserved State agreement does not deal with basic rates of pay and casual loadings, maximum ordinary hours of work, annual leave, personal leave or parental leave and related entitlements in respect of an employee, the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard will apply to the employee in respect of that matter. 46  Clause 44 of Schedule 8 After “for a matter”, insert “in relation to an employee”. 47  Clause 44 of Schedule 8 After “also deals with that matter”, insert “in relation to the employee”. 48  Paragraph 20(2)(b) of Schedule 9 Repeal the paragraph. Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 49  Paragraph 5A(a) of Schedule 4 After “meaning of”, insert “paragraph 513(4)(b) of”. 50  At the end of item 5A of Schedule 4 Add “, to the extent that the term requires the payment of redundancy pay within the meaning of paragraph 513(4)(b) of the amended Act”. 51  Application of items 4 and 5 The amendments made by items 4 and 5 of this Schedule apply only in relation to waivers under section 338 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made on or after the commencement of this item. 52  Application of item 7 (1)    The amendment of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made by item 7 of this Schedule applies, and is taken always to have applied, on and from the reform commencement to an unlodged agreement, within the meaning of paragraph 347(2A)(b) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, in relation to which a declaration was lodged on or after the reform commencement. (2)    In this item: reform commencement means the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. 53  Application of items 8 and 9 The amendments made by items 8 and 9 apply only in relation to waivers under section 371 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made on or after the commencement of this item. 54  Application of items 13 to 16 The amendments made by items 13 to 16 apply to a ballot in respect of which a ballot order is made under section 462 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 on or after the commencement of this item. 55  Transitional provision—items 13 to 16 (1)    This item applies to a ballot in respect of which a ballot order was made under section 462 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 before the commencement of this item if:               (a)    the authorised ballot agent for the ballot was the Australian Electoral Commission; and               (b)    the Australian Electoral Commission certifies that the ballot had not been completed at the commencement of this item. (2)    After the commencement of this item, section 483 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 is taken to apply to the incomplete ballot as if the ballot had been completed at the time of the certification referred to in paragraph (1)(b), so far as section 483 relates to costs:               (a)    incurred by the Australian Electoral Commission; and               (b)    in respect of which, had the applicant been liable for the costs of the incomplete ballot, the applicant’s liability would have been able to have been discharged under subsections 483(5) and (6). (3)    To avoid doubt, this item does not affect any liability of the applicant in relation to the cost of holding the incomplete ballot and, in particular, does not impose any additional liability upon the applicant. 56  Application of items 25 and 26 (1)    The amendments of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made by items 25 and 26 of this Schedule apply, and are taken always to have applied, on and from the reform commencement, in relation to a transferring transitional employee. (2)    In this item: reform commencement means the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. transferring transitional employee has the same meaning as in clause 72H of Schedule 6 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996. 57  Application of items 24, 29 and 34 to 40 (1)    The amendments of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made by items 24, 29 and 34 to 40 of this Schedule apply, and are taken always to have applied, on and from the reform commencement, in relation to a section 170MX award (within the meaning of the Workplace Relations Act 1996). (2)    However, subitem (1) does not authorise the imposition of a civil penalty under Part 14 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for a breach that occurred before the commencement of this item. (3)    In this item: reform commencement means the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. 58  Application of items 31 and 33 (1)    The amendments of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made by items 31 and 33 of this Schedule apply, and are taken always to have applied, on and from the reform commencement, in relation to a pre‑reform certified agreement, a preserved State agreement, a notional agreement preserving State awards or a pre‑reform AWA that is in operation on the reform commencement, whether or not the pre‑reform certified agreement, the preserved State agreement, the notional agreement preserving State awards or the pre‑reform AWA is in operation at the commencement of this item. (2)    However, subitem (1) does not authorise the imposition of a civil penalty under Part 14 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for a breach that occurred before the commencement of this item. (3)    In this item: reform commencement means the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. 59  Application of items 41 and 45 (1)    The amendments of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made by items 41 and 45 of this Schedule apply, and are taken always to have applied, on and from the reform commencement, in relation to an employee (including, but not limited to, for the purposes of Division 7 of Part 7 of that Act). (2)    However, subitem (1) does not authorise the imposition of a civil penalty under Part 14 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for a breach that occurred before the commencement of this item. (3)    In this item: reform commencement means the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. 60  Application of items 46 and 47 (1)    The amendments of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made by items 46 and 47 of this Schedule apply, and are taken always to have applied, on and from the reform commencement, in relation to an employee. (2)    However, subitem (1) does not authorise the imposition of a civil penalty under Part 14 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for a breach that occurred before the commencement of this item. (3)    In this item: reform commencement means the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. 61  Application of item 48 (1)    The amendment of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 made by item 48 of this Schedule applies, and is taken always to have applied, on and from the reform commencement, in relation to a transferring employee. (2)    However, subitem (1) does not authorise the imposition of a civil penalty under Part 14 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for a breach that occurred before the commencement of this item. (3)    In this item: reform commencement means the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. transferring employee has the same meaning as in clause 20 of Schedule 9 to the Workplace Relations Act 1996. 62  Application of items 49 and 50 (1)    The amendments of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 made by items 49 and 50 of this Schedule apply, and are taken always to have applied, on and from the reform commencement, in relation to a pre‑reform award or a transitional award within the meaning of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. (2)    In this item: reform commencement means the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. 122 18:20:00 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 0 Mr ANDREWS —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. For the information of honourable members who were not here previously, it was agreed between the government and the opposition that the debate on both of these bills would occur on the first bill. We have had that debate, and therefore I commend the amendments to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006 to the House. Question put: That the amendments be agreed to. 18:21:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott) 81 Abbott, A.J. Anderson, J.D. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baird, B.G. Baker, M. Baldwin, R.C. Barresi, P.A. Bartlett, K.J. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Broadbent, R. Brough, M.T. Cadman, A.G. Causley, I.R. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Downer, A.J.G. Draper, P. Dutton, P.C. Elson, K.S. Entsch, W.G. Farmer, P.F. Fawcett, D. Ferguson, M.D. Forrest, J.A. Gambaro, T. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hardgrave, G.D. Hartsuyker, L. Henry, S. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Jull, D.F. Keenan, M. Kelly, D.M. Kelly, J.M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Lloyd, J.E. Macfarlane, I.E. Markus, L. May, M.A. McArthur, S. * McGauran, P.J. Mirabella, S. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Prosser, G.D. Pyne, C. Randall, D.J. Richardson, K. Robb, A. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Thompson, C.P. Tollner, D.W. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vaile, M.A.J. Vale, D.S. Vasta, R. Wakelin, B.H. Washer, M.J. 57 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Andren, P.J. Bevis, A.R. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Byrne, A.M. Corcoran, A.K. Crean, S.F. Danby, M. * Edwards, G.J. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hall, J.G. * Hatton, M.J. Hayes, C.P. Hoare, K.J. Irwin, J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Lawrence, C.M. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. McClelland, R.B. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J.P. O’Connor, B.P. O’Connor, G.M. Owens, J. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Quick, H.V. Ripoll, B.F. Roxon, N.L. Sawford, R.W. Sercombe, R.C.G. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Swan, W.M. Tanner, L. Thomson, K.J. Vamvakinou, M. Wilkie, K. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 123 Bills R2651 123 Debate resumed from 30 November, on motion by Dr Washer: That this bill be now read a second time. 123 18:24:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 0 Mr MURPHY —When I was speaking on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 last Thursday before the adjournment debate I was about to draw the attention of the House to the other examples of the obfuscation and deception in terminology related to Senator Patterson’s bill which are designed to confuse, mislead and deceive us. For example, the term ‘nuclear transfer’ has replaced ‘therapeutic cloning’. In 2004 the International Society for Stem Cell Research changed the terminology to deceive the public that SCNT is not cloning. Next the term itself, SCNT, replaces the word ‘cloning’ in clause 3 of the draft bill from Senator Stott-Despoja. Then there are the words ‘therapeutic’ versus ‘reproductive’ cloning, as with Dolly the sheep. The scientific journal Nature reports: ... scientists realized that the word ‘cloning’ was generating public concern. So they decided to adopt a more technical term— SCNT— less likely to stir up strong emotions. I will now turn to the second objection. That is, I put to this House that nothing has changed scientifically since it voted resoundingly, on a conscience vote, against the very legislation before us tonight. The only thing that has changed is that we are now being duped into believing that this bill will not permit cloning of human beings. Again, SCNT is cloning, and cloning is SCNT. They are the same thing. The science has not changed. The only thing that is changed is the false and misleading semantics. I turn to the third objection, which is the basis of the Lockhart report. It is clear that the reports of the acting chair of the Lockhart inquiry, Professor Loane Skene, with Professor Ian Kerridge and Professor Peter Schofield, amongst others, demonstrate their unswerving and disproportionate favouritism towards human cloning, as demonstrated on public record. This comes as no surprise to me given that the debate, to them, has been about science rather than morals. That is their speciality, and I do not begrudge them for putting their scientific views forward, notwithstanding the fact that I do not share those views. Associate Professor Kerridge is reported as saying in June 2001: Therapeutic cloning has massive potential. Animal work has shown promising insights into how it can be used to repair tissues that can’t normally repair themselves … Professor Schofield is reported on 9 October 2001 as saying: Parts 4 and 5 of the Human Reproductive Cloning and the Transpecies Fertilisation Bill (NSW) will allow research on human stem cells, including embryonic stem cells and their use in human therapeutic cloning. This is to be commended ... by which exciting and significant new developments in medical research can be progressed ... I am concerned that the Lockhart committee has paid little to no regard to the higher ethical arguments against its finding in support of human embryonic cloning. Science is very good at telling us how to do things or how to reach certain ends. The questions it cannot answer are which ends are ethical or which ends are worth pursuing. Scientists do not have a specialised viewpoint on the ethical questions which are, undoubtedly, just as important as the scientific ones. Indeed, as we have seen worldwide, many scientists simply do not have an interest in the wider ethical questions surrounding their deeds. Some have been consumed by pride, glory or commercial gain. Science should not be the final determinant on this issue; ethics and morals must. Turning to the question of science, the Lockhart committee report has also relied on the so-called research of the now disgraced Dr Hwang Woo Suk, the South Korean scientist with so-called ‘breakthroughs’ in human embryonic cloning. Incredibly, the Lockhart report has failed to revise its findings in the light of the fact that Dr Hwang Woo Suk’s research was falsified and is totally discredited. In this light, we ought to approach the Lockhart report and its findings with some trepidation. This is particularly so if it is to be the basis for making a scientific, right-minded decision on the purported benefits of human cloning or the creation of human embryos. As I have already mentioned, irrespective of the veracity of the Lockhart committee’s findings, the debate today is a moral one not a scientific one. The fourth objection concerns the outcry of public interest objections to human cloning. I again refer to Senator Patterson’s speech on 7 November in which she says: I consider that I am also amongst the majority of Australians, who are in favour of research using somatic cell nuclear transfer to help us better understand disease processes ... For the benefit of Senator Patterson, I have been deluged with correspondence concerning her bill. Literally hundreds of letters, telephone calls and emails have flooded into my electorate office in Lowe. The overwhelming correspondence opposes this bill. The public interest case is not in Senator Patterson’s favour; it is anything but. Many members of the public oppose this bill. During the Lockhart inquiry, there was a call for public submissions. Over 4,000 submissions were received, the vast majority opposing the Lockhart committee’s findings and this legislation. A very great many in our community are strongly opposed to this bill becoming law. Given the higher moral and ethical issues at stake here, with great respect, I do not accept that Senator Patterson can point to such majority support for this cause. It follows that I believe it would be very unwise for us to proceed down Senator Patterson’s path. For this reason alone, I urge every member of this House to oppose this bill. I turn now to the tenuous tactic employed by many who seek to make this bill into law. This objection concerns the offering of false hope to many very sick people who suffer disease that, by permitting human embryonic cloning, this will somehow provide the miracle cures that are ‘just around the corner’. Some proponents of this bill are quick to appeal to the vulnerability of sick people suffering with long-term diseases by enthusiastically promoting the possible medical benefits that could come from this bill. I cite again Senator Patterson in her 7 November speech in which she says that this bill: ... is not a decision about politics. It is about people. It is about hope and it is about trust. A vote against this bill will be a vote to dash the hope that is dearly held by those people watching and listening to us who have medical conditions and who expect nothing from this research for themselves but know that in their cells they have a possible key to understanding their disease which may provide a legacy for future generations of people with this or similar diseases. Why should we restrict their hopes? What a line Senator Patterson spins! With respect, Senator Patterson’s rhetoric is thin and transparent. The old mantra, the lie told again and again, is that we who oppose experimentation on human embryos or embryonic stem cells are somehow impeding research and dashing the hopes of those long-suffering victims of various diseases. The Senate committee’s website provides texts which offer vain hope. There is no concrete evidence which shows that human cloning will provide the benefits promised, let alone dreamed of. The article titled ‘“It’s me prostate, doc!”—your weekend dose of embryonic snake-oil’, dated 10 September 2006, provides an expose of the false hope being promoted by a syndicate of clever but deceptive cloning lobbyists who play ‘endless tricks with rats’ which have ‘no prospect ever of moving to humans, and they know it’. The article goes on to say: The cloning snake-oil salesman is therefore reduced to one dishonourable tactic: to showcase authentic breakthroughs in adult stem cell science, and then by a trick of language sneak in the impression—never quite direct enough to be a lie—that embryonic stem cells can do this too. I will give just one example of this deception. An article in the Australian of 9-10 September asserts, falsely, on the issue of heart disease, that researchers believe they will soon be able to regrow healthy hearts. The article then cites cardiologist Joshua Hare on the issue of regenerative science, who extrapolates wildly from this promising research in adult stem cell research by saying: In Australia, scientists are working on embryonic and adult stem cells that could rebuild heart muscle ... The infusion of the embryonic into what is exclusively adult research is both false and misleading. I put to this House tonight that the principle of double effect applies here—that is, even if human embryonic cloning does deliver on the promises it makes to long-suffering persons with diseases, the destruction of a human being is not outweighed by the benefits it might possibly bring. In any event, those purported benefits are based upon a false hope. I again turn to the rebuttal by Senator Patterson in her 7 November speech in which she says that concerns about women being exploited for ova will be overcome by obtaining their consent. I am not so convinced. There is still no apparent provision in this bill that will regulate the sale or donation of human eggs for cloning experimentation. My eighth objection concerns some of the technical flaws in this bill—that is, the bill will still permit other forms of experimentation or make available the possibility of chimeric or hybrid experimentation. Far from Senator Patterson’s assurances that there is no slippery slope in this legislation, I put to this House that the 2002 legislation followed by this bill’s passage through the Senate recently is evidence enough that we are very much going down a slippery slope. What guarantees can Senator Patterson give us that there will not be chimeric or hybrid cloning with humans now or in the future? Senator Patterson cannot give us any, any more than when she was so certain of her opposition to cloning in 2002, from which she has chosen to depart. It is clear that the cloning lobby used the human embryonic stem cell bill in 2002 as the thin edge of the wedge. This is nothing more than a slick selling cycle. The 2002 prohibition on cloning bill was only a decoy for a short period of time. Now, the cloning lobby is attempting to seduce a significant number of politicians to approve cloning. The next step in this atrocious string of bills could be human hybrid and chimeric experimentation. There may be no end to the amount of greed and evil stemming from this bill if we permit it to be passed. Members are aware that only last year, in 2005, at the 59th plenary session of the United Nations General Assembly, Australia voted in support of the United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning. This international instrument prohibits all forms of human cloning—including SCNT—inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life. This bill permits cloning, which is incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life. I repeat: the consequence of this bill will be to permit the cloning of human embryos for their destruction. Hence, this bill, if passed, could violate our position as a signatory to the 2005 UN declaration. Passing this bill would be a humiliating and hypocritical position for this legislature to take. I simply say what I said earlier: there is more than one way to create a human embryo. It is wrong to suggest that there is some difference between human embryos created by egg-sperm fusion, SCNT or parthenogenesis. In my last few minutes, I turn to the manner in which this bill was introduced into the House and parliament. As members of this House are well aware, this bill was introduced via the Senate on 19 October 2006. The fact that this bill, a conscience vote bill, was moved first in the Senate is most irregular. In particular, I refer to pages 280 and 281 of the House of Representatives Practice, fifth edition, under the title of ‘Free Votes’ bills. Significantly, the House of Representatives Practice lists bills that are directly related to this bill before us today—that is, a bill that concerns the broad group of policy issues that may be called ‘life issues’. Successive Commonwealth parliaments have debated many such life issue bills, including the Medical Practice Clarification Bill 1973, the termination of pregnancy medical benefits motion No. 80/692 of 1973, the Euthanasia Laws Bill 1996 and the Research Involving Human Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill 2002. It is most significant to note that all of these four life issue conscience vote bills were initiated in the House of Representatives. It is clear that the Senate has historically concerned itself with conscience votes on essentially matrimonial, family and sex discrimination bills. (Time expired) 126 18:38:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 1 0 Mrs GASH —It seems to me that, ironically, the debate about stem cell research surrounds the ethical question of the value of human life but from opposing ends of the spectrum. It is a debate in which the protagonists argue either from a moral-ethical perspective or from a pragmatic-humanitarian one. Each position has merit, and I recognise and respect the rationale behind each position. That is not to say that someone has to be entirely right and someone has to be entirely wrong. Each case has within it a degree of justification; it just depends on the perspective you choose to adopt. When the House debated the Research Involving Embryos and Prohibition of Human Cloning Bill in 2002, many of the ethical versus humanitarian issues were broached, and it seems that we are revisiting the same question. There can be no doubt that this research is receiving a growing acceptance throughout the world. It is worthwhile noting that in the United States neither the Clinton administration nor the Bush administration has ever prohibited the private funding of embryonic stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is comparatively well funded, both privately and publicly, in the United States—so it can be expected that the United States is better positioned to develop emerging discoveries in the field of stem cell technology. In Britain, a similar disposition has been reached, although the approaches have their unique distinctions. Adult stem cell research appears to have received acceptance but, on the question of embryonic stem cells, the debate remains wide open. There is no disputing the scientific evidence that embryonic stem cells present the greater potential, but that means that cells have to be harvested from human embryos. Therein lies the conflict in the debate, which has collided with prevailing Christian-Judaic values and beliefs of our Western society. So it is not a matter of us debating stem cell research today as such; rather, it is a debate over the morality of harvesting stem cells from embryos and at what stage we view the embryo as a living human being. We can look at this in two ways: either from an emotional and spiritual point of view or dispassionately and pragmatically. The emotional and spiritual point of view respects the sanctity of life, a value that sets the human race above other species. But so too does the pragmatic approach, which says that living human beings whose quality of life has been compromised through injury or disease, or those facing imminent death, are entitled to every opportunity for a relatively normal life. I am heartened by a newspaper report on August 24 that a United States company has announced that it has developed a way to make human embryonic stem cells without harming the embryo. Whether this comes to fruition or not remains to be seen, but it does illustrate the progression of science and offers a way out of the present ethical conflict. I can only reiterate my statement of 2002 in which I said: As an individual with a Christian ethic, I have a deep respect for the sanctity of life and I believe that, as Christians, we have a duty to ease the suffering of humankind. If we are to hold true to that tenet then we are beholden to explore avenues as to how we can do that, which brings us back to the original, very valid first question: are the IVF embryos created in the test tube in the first place life or just a basis for the continuance of life? If we can reconcile that concept within ourselves, then the decision is an easy one. If we accept that these artificially created embryos are not life, as in the accepted sense, then this places the proposition in the same vein as the issue of organ donors— something I firmly believe in. I continued: The extraction of stem cells, therefore, becomes an obvious progression. In my mind, I am reconciled with the view that greater good can flow from this and that research should be allowed. I will also be supporting the splitting of the bill. We can mourn at what might have been but we should also rejoice at what can be. I have not changed my views. In fact, the more people I come across with Parkinson’s disease, MS, spinal injuries, blindness, cancer and many other debilitating diseases, the more I am convinced that the time has come to modify the values that were instilled in us that were a product of a bygone era. I believe that there is a moral and societal obligation to pursue this research. But such a direction should only be taken within the strictest guidelines and in accordance with prevailing community standards. In that respect, we are here today as advocates for our respective electorates to reflect the community attitude as a whole. I would hope that prior to coming here the question has been well canvassed and that we speak from a position that reflects the majority view rather than promoting our own personal views. On a question as important as this, I would have difficulty in advocating a view that was not widely held and held by significantly more than a simple majority. There has been much public conjecture over this issue. I sought the views of the people of Gilmore by way of extensive surveys in 2002 and now, which I distributed to a significant proportion of my electorate. It is through those responses that I make this statement, knowing that it reflects the majority view. To those persons who hold an opposing view, I can only say that I respect your views and appreciate why you have them. At one time, I may have held similar views but, with the march of time and through life’s experiences, I have changed those views. The reasons for my change of heart I described in my statement in 2002, and they are on the public record. In closing can I say that this technology offers humanity great hope for overcoming some of the terrible conditions that blight people’s lives. It is certainly not the miracle cure some might hope for, but it does advance the march towards addressing those conditions that bring so much misery and sadness to individuals and their families. It is only right that we continue to pursue technologies that improve the quality of human life. To argue otherwise is a fatalistic acceptance that denies hope and aspiration, a very common human condition found in us all. I support the bill and commend Senator Patterson on her bill. I know that the work that she did was very intensive and from the heart. 128 18:44:00 Edwards, Graham, MP 83R Cowan ALP 0 0 Mr EDWARDS —I compliment the previous speaker, the member for Gilmore, on her contribution in this debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I think she made some very good points and she made them very well. Like me, she has sought the views of many people—not just from within her electorate but also from within the community generally. I tend to respect all the views that are put to me on issues like this, but I have only one vote, and I will exercise that vote according to my conscience. Having said that, I respect all the views that have been put to me, and I thank all the people from my electorate who have contacted me with a view. In listening to people on issues like this we tend to go beyond the electorate, and I certainly have done that. I received one letter which really moved me greatly, and I want to refer to part of it. It is from a bloke who lives in Victoria. As part of a long letter he said: I participated in the recent Lockhart review down here in Melbourne, culminating in a forum at the Sofitel Hotel. I must say I was not prepared for the aggressive stand from certain opposing sectors. Whilst I agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion, I found some of the comments particularly towards disabled people from the church lobby and the Right to Life groups very insensitive, insulting and extremely Un-Christian like. One such Reverend’s comments were ‘I know quite a few disabled people and they cope quite adequately.’ It’s all very well to say I have spoken to disabled people and they cope quite adequately, that is because we have no choice. If you ask anyone who is disabled how are you going today, nine times out of 10 they will say I am fine, because no one wants to hear if you’re having a bad day. I found this a very offensive and narrow-minded attitude to have towards human suffering, so I asked him the question, had he ever suffered from a disability, there was no answer. The point I tried to make to the Forum was that no one really understands suffering until they have lived it like I and others have to every day. They have no idea what it is like to feel paralysed, lose control of your bladder or bowels, and lose sexual function, independence, self-esteem, career, marriage breakdown and feel totally alone. I also put to the opposers that if they or any of their family had a severe disability maybe they would have a different point of view, again no response. …     …         … Speaking for people with all sorts of disabilities, the many scientists that I am in touch with around Australia and as an Honorary Director of Spinal Cure Australia, this is the only way forward for the future and for the good of human kind, anything less would be an absolute injustice to the many people suffering here in Australia and around the world. To anyone who opposes this research, then maybe you could think about spending a day in my shoes. I am a quadriplegic! The letter is signed by Gary Allsop, Honorary Director of SpinalCure Australia. I am also aware of a press release that SpinalCure Australia put out on 11 August. It is headed, ‘Please get it right Health Minister Abbott in explaining the stem cell debate.’ The press release says: Health Minister Tony Abbott is potentially misleading his colleagues and the public on stem cell research by claiming it’s a debate we have already had and by using terms like ‘cloning’ inappropriately. Mr Abbott reportedly said “cloning” has been rejected in a parliamentary conscience debate in 2002 and that nothing had changed since the debate. In fact in 2002, the conscience vote was about whether to allow research on spare IVF embryos under strict conditions. What was banned in 2002, and would continue to be banned if the Lockhart Report is supported, is human reproductive cloning: the ethically insupportable idea of attempting to clone a human being. Everybody supporting embryonic stem cell research in Australia opposes reproductive cloning. Mr Abbott failed to make this crucial distinction. What is being discussed this time around is “therapeutic cloning” or somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) which was not put to the vote in 2002. It has been put on the agenda now in 2006 because of recommendations by the government-commissioned Lockhart Review which ruled unanimously in favour of it being made legal in Australia. This type of so called “cloning” is not about copying people, but copying their cells and replacing damaged cells thereby reducing the risk of infection or rejection. It involves taking the nucleus of a patient’s cell and injecting it into an unfertilised human egg to create stem cells. …            …            … SCNT is permitted in countries including the UK, USA, Sweden, New Zealand, Japan and Israel and offers hope to sufferers of spinal injury, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s and a range of other debilitating and life threatening conditions. SpinalCure Australia praises the Lockhart Report for its non-inflammatory unemotive language produced despite an emotional and often irrational public climate within which discussion of stem cell issues has taken place. I read excerpts of the letter from Gary Allsop and most of the press release into the record because I believe they are very pertinent to the debate that we are having and to the conscience vote that we will take as individuals when the debate has concluded. I have listened to a number of other contributions to this debate because, like other members here, I take this debate very seriously. I must say that I have been particularly influenced by Mal Washer, the Liberal member for Moore. Mal Washer used to be my mother’s doctor, and she always spoke very highly of him. He looked after her in a very caring and conscientious way, and he impressed me then. I certainly do not agree with him on issues of politics, but I have listened to Mal speak in this debate, and I think that he speaks from the heart and from experience, and he puts a very common-sense argument. I have also listened to Jim Benson, who is a friend of mine in Perth. He is a member of my electorate and executive officer of the Motor Neurone Disease Association of Western Australia. Jim also speaks with a very balanced view and in a very passionate way. I have also listened closely to the arguments put by Dee O’Brien, a former staff officer in my electorate office. She has recently retired and gone off to have a baby, and I certainly wish her well. I have listened to the very reasoned arguments that she put to me. She certainly, above many others, has had an influence on the decision that I have taken to support this legislation. I will continue to listen to the debate with interest, and I certainly hope that this debate will continue in the very balanced, considered way in which it has been conducted. It think it reflects well on individual members of this parliament that they are able to deal with an issue such as this in a very mature and proper way. I support the legislation. 130 18:53:00 Anderson, John, MP 4K4 Gwydir NATS 1 0 Mr ANDERSON —I contribute to this debate with a somewhat heavy heart, because I am astounded that in just four years, on the basis of such extraordinarily little evidence of any scientific movement, we have gone from a position of very resoundingly rejecting cloning to one in which we are now seriously proposing that it be adopted. We have brushed aside all of those warnings that we really were on some sort of slippery slope, yet any objective analysis of how quickly we have moved on this issue would suggest that it has been an extremely well-oiled slippery slope. One wonders just what we might be asked to adopt or support next if we adopt this measure. It is just over four years ago since this House voted—without dissent—to prohibit the creation of a human embryo by any means other than fertilisation, including cloning. We are now being asked to support technologies which are precisely the same as those that brought Dolly the sheep into being in relation to human genetic material. It ought to be remembered that the then Minister for Health and Ageing, who has now moved this private members bill that has brought the debate on, said: I believe strongly that it is wrong to create human embryos solely for research. It is not morally permissible to develop an embryo with the intent of truncating it at an early stage for the benefit of another human being. No-one questioned that then. But, just four years on, with no ethical basis whatsoever for a change in the position and, so far as I can tell, the absolutely thinnest of scientific justification for any change, we are being asked to turn that on its head. We were assured back then that there were more than sufficient human embryos in frozen storage in IVF clinics, no longer required by the couple for whom they were made and therefore available for research, including the extraction of embryonic stem cell lines. They, or some, said: ‘That will be enough; we won’t need any more. We won’t come back for any more.’ The National Health and Medical Research Council has reported that there were 104,830 embryos in frozen storage in 2003. As at 31 March 2006, only 122 excess ART embryos had been used under the four licences issued to allow the derivation of human embryonic stem cells. So let us, at the outset, nail one thing: it is clearly not the case that the stockpile is exhausted. As I touched on a moment ago, those of us who in 2002 cautioned that a vote for research on these so-called excess ART embryos would sooner or later lead to a demand for the production of human embryos by cloning were accused of scaremongering. We were urged very strongly to stop talking about the slippery slope. Yet, here we are, faced with a bill, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, that would allow the creation of human embryos by cloning with the intention that each embryo so created would be destroyed in the name of scientific research. As Cardinal George Pell has warned, this bill would allow the creation of two classes of human beings: those intended to live and those marked for death. There are those who say, ‘We can’t quite understand why a collection of cells ought to be seen as a human being.’ The previous speaker, the member for Cowan, referred to having been influenced by someone on the other side of politics. I would like to do the same tonight. I am indebted to Dr Emerson, who I think spoke very eloquently and very convincingly in this place from, I think, an intellectually unassailable position. I will quote him, because I would like to read it back into the Hansard. He asked: What significance are we to attach to the embryo so created?— that is, by these cloning techniques— Those who argue in favour of this legislation effectively answer ‘not much’; it is not ... very important. Those who argue against this legislation say that this embryo is important. Again we should look at what the Lockhart committee report says about this, because it needs to grapple with this new ethical issue. It says— and he then quoted from the Lockhart committee report: ... the Committee found that, while it was difficult to logically define a moral difference between embryos formed by fertilisation and those formed by nuclear transfer or related methods— and we need to remember that such an embryo, if implanted in a woman’s womb, would have the potential to grow into a cloned human being— it appeared that embryos formed by fertilisation of eggs by sperm may have a different social or relational significance from embryos formed by nuclear transfer. I find that so thin as to be contemptible, I am sorry to have to say—I genuinely do. I find it indefensible and I cannot believe that members of this parliament could accept that that is an adequate safeguard against the appalling potential for opportunism and for a shifting morass of values attached to different potential lives. Dr Emerson went on to say: Those are the key words: ‘a different social or relational significance’. This becomes the new ethical definition: if an embryo has a social or relational significance, we should respect it and protect it; if an embryo does not have a social or relational significance, we should not worry about its destruction. What a subjective judgement that is. Who is going to go around Australia and the world deciding whether a particular embryo has a social or relational significance? That is very worrying. It is very dangerous territory to have such subjective judgements made outside of this parliament by people who just determine on the basis of their own view of the world whether a particular embryo that has been created has a social or relational significance. As Father Frank Brennan argues, this is very dangerous territory. When does a cloned embryo attain such a social or relational significance that it then demands, according to those who wrote the Lockhart report, proper consideration, respect and protection? Apparently— the good doctor notes sarcastically, and I join him in his sarcasm— the answer to that is on the 14th day. How about that! On the 13th day, this embryo does not have a social or relational significance. On the 15th day, it does have a social or relational significance. So, on the 14th day, we will destroy it to prevent it getting a social or relational significance on the 15th day. That there is something magical about the 14th day is— surely—my own word— an absurd proposition. I join with Dr Emerson in saying that I do not know where the boundary is once you decide on 14 days. I do not know where it stops, and that is why I believe that this is so dangerous. This year is the 200th anniversary of the ending—in our civilisation, if we broadly define it in Western terms—of the slave trade. We ought to remember that the history of our civilisation is marked by the struggle to include others as acknowledged members of the human family. There was a time when, if you did not have relational or social significance because you were black, you were a ‘good and chattel’. That is the way you were described. The infamous Dred Scott decision by the US Supreme Court defined black American slaves as ‘chattel property’ rather than persons, under the United States Constitution. In the United States it took a civil war to overturn that proposition. In Britain, it was the persistence of parliamentarian William Wilberforce, backed by many others, over decades, which led to the abolition of the slave trade and the emancipation of all slaves throughout the British Empire. We need to be very careful indeed about saying that some person has a value, some life has a value or some potential life has a value because it has relational significance and is wanted and another does not because it does not have the same significance. That is a territory from which we have freed ourselves, and the beneficiaries down through the ages can be numbered in the tens of millions. I suggest that we need to be very careful indeed not to forget our history. James Sherley, MIT professor and graduate of Harvard, a black American from Tennessee, wrote these words in response to the decision to allow the cloning of human embryos at Harvard: People value foremost the lives they know and understand. The drive to protect the lives of those we know and love is instinctive for individuals and societies. Much of human ingenuity has been dedicated to preserving ... life. Thus, with caring, nursing, and technology, we hold and protect our living who cannot move, who cannot communicate, who cannot awaken, who cannot grow, whose hearts cannot beat unaided, and who cannot breathe. We even fight to reclaim our living from the sudden death of heart attacks. A defining feature of our humanity is that we also have the capacity to do the same for others whom we do not know. If the hands of members of the Harvard review board were sensitive enough, they could come to know human embryos better. They could feel that the smallest such embryos, like us, are warm to the touch, that they move as they grow, and they breathe just as surely as we do. This is the fundamental reason to oppose this bill. Rather than including others in our common humanity, it allows the creation of human embryos destined for destruction: human beings with no father, no mother and no family; human beings reduced to mere laboratory material. Why are we really being asked to cross this line? If we do cross it, where will it lead next? One member of this House, on my side of the parliament, came to me and said, ‘Why do you oppose this?’ I said, ‘Have you considered how far we have moved, with such scant evidence and reason behind it, to get to this point? Where will we go next?’ He was struck by that and has indicated to me that he has gone away to think about it again. Those who want to support this bill all ought to do that. The justification for allowing human cloning is a shifting proposition. When it suits proponents and when the audience does not include knowledgeable scientists, we are told that cloning is necessary to produce matched embryonic stem cells for therapies for Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, spinal cord injury, diabetes and so forth—and many people have had their hopes raised by this. I have seen it happen. To a more knowledgeable audience it is then conceded, however, that such therapies are unlikely, due to insurmountable practical problems like the tendency of embryonic stem cells to cause tumours. Indeed, Professor Loane Skene has conceded that this is only about research. She made no claims in her advocacy for this bill for the potential development of new tissues, replacement tissues or organs. It is then claimed that cloning is necessary to produce patient-specific diseased stem cell lines to study the causes of diseases and to test drugs. However, when it is pointed out that Professor Mackay-Sim, at the National Adult Stem Cell Centre at Griffith University, is already conducting such study using patient-specific diseased stem cell lines derived from cells obtained from the patients’ noses, the ground suddenly shifts again. Now we are being told that cloning is necessary to identify the factors that can reprogram an adult cell to become an embryonic stem cell. And so it goes on. In the course of these shifting claims it is said that—and, with great respect, we heard something like it from the previous speaker—we ‘should do anything necessary’ to cure a sick child and that we must not deny people hope. Those who oppose cloning, especially those with identifiable religious convictions, are accused of lacking compassion. I think it unlikely to be seriously the case that anyone in this place lacks compassion for others. To be fair to all members of this place and the Senate, a large part of their motivation for being here is because they care about other people. I would like to very clearly state, in defence of the churches and the Christians who are usually seen as being against this sort of legislation, that I do not think you can make the charge stick that they lack compassion or concern for other people. They have led the charge to expand an understanding of the importance and sanctity of each life. Furthermore, I noted a very interesting article in the Guardian newspaper last year headed ‘Faith does breed charity’. It was written by Roy Hattersley, who is of your political persuasion, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan. He is a pretty distinguished former Labour minister. He was not commenting on cloning or stem cell research, except by way of illustration, but, in his article, he spelled out very clearly that we need to concede that, while it is often Christians who are ridiculed for their beliefs in relation to things like stem cell research, sexual permissiveness and so forth, it is often those very people—in fact it is usually them—that you will find manning the soup kitchens, helping the destitute and the deserted and finding a place in hospital for AIDS sufferers, when they in fact disagree with a homosexual lifestyle. I commend that article to anyone who thinks that they can seriously mount an argument that there is a lack of compassion from those who, for Christian reasons, have an objection to this legislation. I think Hattersley’s honesty is refreshing. In relation to Australians’ real views on this, the most reliable research carried out on this issue is that conducted by Christine Critchley from Swinburne University of Technology. Her comprehensive 2004 research found that a significant majority of Australians, about 64 per cent, were not comfortable with obtaining stem cells from cloned embryos. The research also found, interestingly, that religion was not the determining factor in this opposition to cloning. Her most recent research, conducted as the Senate was debating this bill, found that only 31.5 per cent of Australians were comfortable with therapeutic cloning. I hope that registers in this place, because I think many of us are under the misapprehension that there is broad based support for this out in the community. I am not sure that they really understand that we are talking about cloning, the same technology used to create Dolly the sheep. Other speakers have confirmed that the majority of correspondence received from constituents on this bill urges them to oppose the bill. With the concurrence of those at the table, I seek to table an electronic document containing nearly 19,000 signatures collected by Make a Stand. The document states that the signatories ‘are opposed to human cloning, which includes therapeutic cloning’. Leave granted. 10000 McMullan, Bob (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr McMullan)—I understand the member for Gwydir did seek and receive agreement to table it, but just so that everyone knows: it cannot be accepted as a petition, but it is a tabled document. 4K4 Anderson, John, MP Mr ANDERSON —Thank you. Let me conclude by asking: where to next? This bill, like the legislation we passed in 2002, has a built-in review process. In my view, this review is designed to facilitate a further slide down the slippery slope. The review must consider any research which has been prevented as a result of legislative restrictions and recommend amendments to the legislation having regard to this matter. What more could scientists want? Anticipating the cheap accusation of scaremongering, let me mention two of the most likely proposals that will face this House in 2011. I will not be here, but others of you may be. Firstly, there is likely to be a demand that women be paid for providing the thousands of human eggs that are likely to be needed if human cloning is ever going to produce any results. In Korea, the disgraced Professor Hwang Woo Suk used over 2,300 human eggs in his failed attempt to repeat his successful cloning of Snuppy the puppy in the human species. He could only get this number of eggs by a combination of coercion and bribery. In Britain, attempts at human cloning have not yet succeeded, despite the Newcastle facility using about 70 human eggs a month. They can only get these numbers by offering bribes, in the form of discounted IVF treatment, to poorer women. I believe that this is a real issue. I think we will next be presented with arguments justifying all sorts of payments as a simple market exchange. We will be told that it is patronising to deny women the right to choose to exchange their eggs, a valuable resource, for valuable consideration. Secondly, we will be told that a real answer to the organ shortage and to the need for tissue for therapies is at hand. Scientists could transfer a human embryo clone to a woman’s body for a few weeks, certainly less than 20 weeks, which is the cut-off for legal abortion in some states, and the foetal clone would then be removed and dissected to obtain whole organs—liver or pancreas or whatever—or tissue such as brain tissue for treating the child or adult patient from which the foetus had been cloned. People will say that that is just science fiction and the bill prevents it. Well, the bill presented just four years ago said no to cloning—never. But it is not just science fiction. A serious Professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University and Head of the Melbourne-Oxford Stem Cell Collaboration, which is devoted to examining the ethical implications of cloning and embryonic stem cell research, in 1999 wrote: … it is not merely morally permissible but morally required that we employ cloning to produce embryos or fetuses for the sake of providing cells, tissues or even organs for therapy, followed by abortion of the embryo or fetus. We should reject this bill because it dehumanises a whole class of human beings and it represents a further decisive slide down the slippery slope into a scientific barbarism that will treat some human beings as raw material to be cannibalised at will for the benefit of other human beings. I seriously believe it should stop. 134 19:12:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 0 0 Mr SNOWDON —I acknowledge the contribution of the member for Gwydir. I do not come to the same conclusions as him in the position I have adopted on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, but I think he should be commended for the intelligent way in which he has approached the debate and the significant and weighty arguments—indeed, compelling arguments on many fronts—which he has put. This debate is compelling all of us to take a decision on our own view about how this piece of legislation should be treated—not a party view but an individual view. From my own perspective it is another encouraging sign of the relevance of this chamber. Importantly, also, it shows the relevance of having these sorts of debates in this forum. We as politicians, as members of this parliament and representatives of the Australian people, can feel comfortable in representing our own personal views on such weighty matters as this within this chamber and having those views tested in a vote. It is extremely important, in my view, that we understand what that means in a democracy, bearing in mind that there are many places in the world where even the semblance of resistance to the proposition which is being put would confront people with personal threats. In this case, we are talking about a very lively debate, an intellectual debate, a debate which sees people taking strong moral positions and expressing them in this chamber. So I am very pleased that we are having this conscience vote because of the nature of the issues which are being addressed. Of course, the issues today are as complex now as they were when we first considered them in 2002. These are matters which are at the forefront of scientific understanding. But the decision that we make here is not uninformed. There have been many contributions to this debate outside this chamber, from scientists, theologians, ethicists and others—people from the community sector who have made themselves available and contributed to the discussion in many and varied ways. I also want to say thank you to those people who took the trouble to write to me from within my electorate. Of course, there was blanket coverage of members of this parliament by people from all over Australia, but I particularly want to thank those people in my electorate who took the trouble to send me a message about what they thought of this piece of legislation. In coming to my own decision to support the legislation, I reviewed the decisions I took to support the bill in 2002. I believe that those decisions are still sound. I take support from the research and findings of the Lockhart report. In 2002, you will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, the parliament decided to prohibit human reproductive cloning to prohibit the creation of human embryos from those assisted reproductive technology programs for research programs but subject to strict regulation. Importantly, it directed that an independent review be conducted. That, of course, was the Lockhart review, which was handed down last December and which made 54 recommendations for the current regulatory system. In June of this year Mr Howard, the Prime Minister, responded and announced that no changes would be made as a result of the hearings and the recommendations of the Lockhart committee. What we are doing is responding to a stimulus from two private member’s bills—one by Senator Stott Despoja and another by Senator Webber—which ultimately led to the piece of amending legislation that we have today. Of course, when we are discussing this issue of stem cell research, it is hard not to consider the many advances in medical treatment which have taken place in the last half-century. With such advances, the initial response is often one of apprehension—apprehension about interfering with the natural order or disrupting the moral fibre of our society. Such is evident in the response in the 1970s to genetic engineering. I am sure that, as an interested observer to those debates, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, you will recall those discussions—although it does give away our age. Concerns over human safety and morality led to a moratorium on all research in the area being proposed. This was ultimately rejected. However, were it accepted, it would have precluded the development of a vaccine for cervical cancer in the 1980s—a development which prevents half a million deaths each year worldwide. It is important to acknowledge that this example of history, whilst not answering the questions of morality at stake here, is, however, something which we need to contemplate. During the course of the last couple of weeks I had cause to have a conversation with a friend of mine who is a philosopher. She was kind enough to send me a paper, which I circulated to members of the Labor Party caucus today, by Professor Jean Porter. Professor Porter teaches theology at the University of Notre Dame and is a specialist in the areas of foundational moral theology and the history of Christian moral thought. I was compelled to read this essay, which as I say I have circulated, because it compares the Catholic perspectives of today—and I say this as a Catholic—with the implications of what St Thomas Aquinas, that great Catholic theologian, said about ensoulment, which is when an embryo might be thought of as a person in the sense of having a rational soul. Aquinas did not think that an early embryo possesses a rational soul. Rather, it has a vegetative soul initially, then a sensitive soul. These are subsumed within the rational soul later in the process of development. I am no theologian, but I was attracted by this discussion because, in exploring the state of the embryo from a contemporary Catholic perspective, Professor Porter raises significant questions. In this paper, which was in Commonweal on 8 February 2002 and is copyrighted to the Commonweal Foundation, she really does pose the important question as to when, in a theological or philosophical sense, life begins. The contemporary Catholic position, as I understand it, is one in which an early-stage embryo is considered a living human organisation. This is a position of immediate hominisation. But St Thomas Aquinas, as I pointed out, had a different perspective. This perspective is termed ‘delayed hominisation’, where life is not seen to begin until the later stage of development that I described earlier. Of course, Aquinas will be disregarded by many for his lack of contemporary relevance—his perspective would have reflected an imperfect knowledge of biology. But Porter argues that such an out-of-hand dismissal is misguided and that it: ... can have the unfortunate effect of leading us to assume that our own arguments for immediate hominization are stronger and more persuasive than they actually are. Of course, the idea of immediate hominisation, as she points out, has its basis in dubious scientific claims, such as the idea of preformation—that the human person is contained full formed in either the sperm or the ovum. What is needed, as she points out, is ‘a systematic argument’ based on the facts that we know today about the early-stage embryo—for example, about its genetic uniqueness and its capacity for growth and development. I present this not because I am an expert or have any particular knowledge of the subject but simply to say that there are different views within the Catholic Church and that you can have a rational view about this discussion that can lead you to a conclusion that you are able to support stem cell research using embryos. That is a conclusion which I came to some time ago—previously without the benefit of Aquinas, I might say—through my own thought processes. I am encouraged that there are people who see the benefit of Aquinas’s thought, even in the contemporary age, given that there would be those who would argue that his knowledge of anatomy compared to how we view our knowledge of these matters would be vastly inferior. Yet that is not the point, because what there needs to be is a substantive argument to disprove what Aquinas has said. As Porter has pointed out, it appears that that substantive argument is not there. So I feel comfortable in my position as a Catholic in being able to support this legislation. In any event, it seems to me that we take positions in this place based on our own understanding of what is right, and we take those positions even though they might be based on sometimes dubious assumptions—at least perceived by others as dubious assumptions. When we take those positions on our own reconciliation of the arguments, then it seems to me that we have a right to express them here and not be pilloried for doing so. Of course, we will be criticised. There will be people who say, ‘You are wrong,’ and I am prepared to accept that criticism. I do value the opportunity to talk about these very important moral questions and argue, as I do, that we have an obligation as a community both here in Australia and indeed in the world community to seek ways of alleviating the suffering of others. If we are potentially able to provide cures for such diseases as cancer, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s through the use of stem cell research, then we should encourage that research. I say that all humankind will benefit. It seems to me that we have an obligation to, if we can, alleviate the suffering of those who are so afflicted. I appreciate that there are those who say, as the member for Gwydir has done, that the arguments that I have made do not cut the mustard with him. Fortunately, he is able to vote a different way. I am not going to compel him to support me, nor would I cajole him to support me. I respect his values and I respect his views just as I respect the views and moral values of others who are participating in this debate and those who will not support the legislation. There have been many advances in adult and embryonic stem cell research and significant legislative changes overseas since the acts were introduced in 2002. According to Professor Bob Williamson from the Australian Academy of Science’s National Committee for Medicine: New research shows the value of embryonic and adult stem cells and somatic cell nuclear transfer in informing work to improve the health of Australians. Further, he says: Retaining a total ban on somatic cell nuclear transfer in Australia rather than allowing it under strict, transparent regulation will disadvantage Australian researchers, the Australian economy—and ultimately, the people of Australia. Of course we then confront the issue of the inevitable brain drain, because already, as he points out, the less restrictive regulatory environment overseas has led to a number of prominent stem cell scientists leaving Australia for the United States. There are strong moral questions to be responded to, but I believe there are strong moral arguments to support this legislation. There are also strong scientific and medical reasons, and strong arguments in terms of our nation’s economy for supporting this legislation. As I say, I support the right of those who do not share my view to express them, but I would urge them to reconsider. I will take great pride in supporting this legislation. 137 19:29:00 Gambaro, Teresa, MP 9K6 Petrie LP Parliamentary Secretary (Foreign Affairs) 1 0 Ms GAMBARO —I would like to place on record my recognition of the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Lingiari, and his powerful statements in support of the bill. I also would like to register my strong support today of the private member’s bill moved by Senator Patterson, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. Before I go into the reasons for my support, I would like to acknowledge the work of Senator Patterson, Senator Webber and Senator Stott Despoja in bringing this bill, firstly, into the Senate and now into the House of Representatives. I am speaking on this bill because my constituents deserve to know what position I have taken on the bill and I have an obligation, as their elected representative, to tell them. I wish to thank my many constituents from Petrie for the representations they made to me, as well as those made by churches, research doctors, advocacy groups, scientists and community organisations. All of the arguments have been delivered with conviction, particularly from those against the proposed changes, and I do appreciate and respect their points of view. These concerns included issues regarding when life begins and questioning the effectiveness of the science of embryonic stem cell research in providing cures for diseases. I always value input from my constituents, and I thank each and every one of them for the time they have taken to write to me, to email me or to phone my office. I must say that I was not like many of my colleagues, who were crystal clear about voting either for or against the bill. It has led me on a journey of listening to scientific advice, seasoned arguments for and against, and I have taken into account the views and recommendations of the Lockhart committee, which was a committee made up of scientists and legal ethicists. Some people have seen this issue as largely a moral one. As a Roman Catholic, I take my faith and the issues of human life very seriously. However, about 11 years ago my father was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, a debilitating wasting disease for which currently there is no cure. I must say that I knew nothing of how such a disease affected families across Australia until my family experienced this incredible journey. I wish to place on the record my great appreciation of the work being done in Queensland by Professor Alan McKay-Sim and Professor Peter Silburn on adult stem cell research in my home state. About four months ago my family was proud and honoured to have a fundraising night for adult stem cell research, during which we founded the Dominico Gambaro Research Foundation. To my colleagues in this House—the Hon. Joe Hockey, the Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations, and Kevin Rudd, the opposition leader—I thank them immensely for their support on the night. Despite the great potential already seen in the adult stem cell field, I believe that scientists must be given the greatest opportunity to find remedies for many diseases that are currently incurable, including Parkinson’s. I know that embryonic stem cells are in the early stages of developmental research, but I feel that we should not close off this avenue. It is the current frontier of medical research, and Australia has the opportunity to be among the world leaders in developing these techniques. The cutting edge nature of the work was recognised by the diabetes unit at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, which named its recently developed stem cell line Endeavour 1, after Captain Cook’s ship. It is a fitting name. That is where I see us standing at this moment. There is a journey of exploration ahead of us; we are not exactly sure what we will find, but there will be no discovery unless there is an attempt. And there are indications of a great wealth of potential cures to be found. Embryonic stem cell research has identified the potential for therapies for specific diseases and recent research includes the following. In the US, at Advanced Cell Technology, human retinal cells have grown from embryonic human stem cells. In a few years time, this may lead to treatments for muscular degeneration. In October 2005, cells that fight cancer were produced from human embryonic stem cells, for the first time, at a laboratory level. Down the track, this ability could hold some promise for treating leukaemias and lymphomas. In February 2006, it was reported that Martin Pera and a group of scientists from Monash University had found a way of removing abnormal stem cells. This promises to eliminate one of the concerns about prospective stem cell lines, mainly the risk of cancerous cells developing. In mice, embryonic stem cells have been used to treat sickle cell anaemia, an inherited disorder particularly prevalent in the tropics. And in November 2005, it was reported that British scientists had converted human embryonic stem cells into cartilage cells, giving the hope that one day cartilage could be grown for transplantation purposes. Although tumour formation is nominated as a downside of embryonic stem cell therapies, none were formed. If Australia chooses not to proceed down this path, it will not stop the creation of embryos by fertilisation and nuclear transfer. This research currently exists in the United Kingdom, Belgium, China, Israel, Japan, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and South Korea. The outcome will invariably be that another generation of scientists will be lost overseas, part of the so-called brain drain. Australia has some of the world’s best scientists and researchers and well-established and well-resourced laboratories. It would be a waste of potential for Australia not to keep pace with an evolving field of research. It was not long ago that blood transfusions, the development of a smallpox vaccine, penicillin and organ transplants were questioned. These procedures now form part of our everyday lives, yet there were many who put hurdles in front of the research. The Lockhart review came up with a number of recommendations to the government. Then a Senate committee examined the review and had an inquiry into the bills put forward by Senator Patterson, Senator Stott Despoja and Senator Webber. I am confident of the prohibitions placed on this bill, and I am convinced that this will not lead to the ability of anyone to misuse this power to continue research in an unethical and dangerous way. At times when I lean down to speak to my father, when he is having one of his not-so-great ‘Parkinson’s days’, he pleads with me to help him. I cannot look him in the eyes and say that I will not be supporting this bill—a bill that one day will find the cure for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases, multiple sclerosis and diabetes; a bill that one day will find the cure for cystic fibrosis, brain damage, muscular dystrophy and stroke; a bill that may not help my dad at this time but may leave a positive legacy so many others will not suffer as he has suffered. If I could do one thing in my role as a parliamentarian to stop one person from suffering from Parkinson’s, I would. And scientists should be given that chance because that ‘one day’ may be here sooner than we think. For me that one day is today, and I will be supporting the bill. 139 19:37:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 0 0 Ms OWENS —I rise to speak in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. We hold conscience votes on bills such as this because they contain within them ethical and moral dilemmas. For some of us in this House, those ethical and moral dilemmas are about the contents of the bill itself. For others, the dilemma stems from our role as representatives of constituents who have conflicting and strongly held views. There are a number of people in my electorate for whom this bill is so profoundly repulsive that their relationship with this government will be quite significantly damaged if this bill is passed. They will be personally hurt by the idea that they live in a society which they believe would create an embryo in order to harvest it for someone else’s gain. I do not believe that this bill does that, but, in considering this bill, my ethical dilemma is how I, as a representative, find a path through these conflicting views of the need by some to find cures for appalling diseases and the revulsion that others have for some of the contents of this bill. The supporters of the bill seek to allow advances in medical research and science which aim to cure diseases for which there are presently no cures. I have received representations from parents of children with illnesses, people with illnesses themselves and peak organisations representing people with illnesses—illnesses that may be cured thanks to the research allowed by this bill. They implore this parliament to follow a path that will allow the scientific research to continue. I have also been contacted by many individuals and representatives of churches who are opposed to this bill. They argue on ethical grounds for the sanctity of human life. Many of the letters and emails I have received are, I believe, ill informed, but some are not. The challenge for members of this House is to find paths that are acceptable to most. We will never find a path that is acceptable to people at both ends of the spectrum, but we must find a path that is acceptable to most. I believe that in drafting this legislation Senators Patterson, Webber and Stott Despoja have done an extraordinary job in finding middle ground and in building in safeguards that address most of the concerns that have been raised by my constituents. Before I even saw this legislation, I started to consider what lines I would not cross in relation to stem cell research. There were three. The first is quite obvious: I would never support a bill that allowed the creation of an embryo specifically for it to be harvested. If I believed that this bill did that, I would not be supporting it. Secondly, I would not support a bill that allowed for the cloning of a human being. In fact, when I considered that, I was quite amazed how repulsed I was by the very idea that anybody might pursue that. Genes have one life; my genes have one life, so do yours, Mr Deputy Speaker, and so do the member for Macarthur’s—even though his genes are very fine indeed. It is also a repulsive idea that we would ever as a society do the experimentation that would be necessary for us to get the cloning of a human being right. It is a revolting idea and I would never support a bill that allowed it to happen. Thirdly, I would not be supporting this bill if I believed it would lead to a market in eggs or embryos in any way. But I do not believe that this bill does any of those three things. I believe that it will benefit many of the people who live with illnesses, particularly some of the worst illnesses, and if there were a way to allow that research without crossing those boundaries, I was looking for it. I believe that this bill delivers it. The debate we are having today on the use of human embryos for research is an extension of the debate that first took place in this place back in 2002; that was also a conscience vote. When the parliament first considered the use of human embryos in research, parliament decided at that time to prohibit human cloning, to prohibit the creation of human embryos except for the purposes of assisted reproduction programs and to allow the use of excess human embryos from those assisted reproduction technology programs for research purposes. The legislation allowed research to be undertaken using embryonic stem cells derived from embryos that would have otherwise been discarded in the IVF program, but it made the use of those embryos subject to strict regulation. One of the safeguards built into the 2002 legislation was the requirement for a review after two years. That review was conducted by the Hon. John Lockhart and subsequently became known as the Lockhart report, which was delivered in December last year and has since then been extensively scrutinised by the Senate and members of the public. In June this year, the Prime Minister responded to the report by saying that the government would not be putting forward changes to the legislative framework for research involving human embryos, so instead we have before us today the private member’s bill which we are now debating. The bill incorporates most of the recommendations of the Lockhart review and it does so without crossing the three lines that I referred to before. It prohibits the development of a human embryo specifically for harvesting. I am putting it that way because that is the language I found in the letters that I received from many of my constituents, who said, ‘Don’t let this happen; it’s morally wrong to create an embryo for harvesting.’ Of course it is. But this bill does not do that. Under this bill, a human embryo—that is, a human egg fertilised with a human sperm—can only be created for the specific purpose of achieving pregnancy in a woman. It prohibits the creation of a human embryo for any other purpose. It goes further, because science has developed since 2002, and it also prohibits the creation of a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg with a human sperm that contains genetic material provided by more than two persons. It is necessary to toughen the regulation here because science has progressed since 2002. Under the IVF programs already in place, more embryos are created than are implanted in the woman and so not all are used. The 2002 bill allowed for the use of excess embryos for research purposes where those embryos were about to be destroyed. I have to say that I am glad I was not voting on that bill; I think I would have found that one very difficult. But, having had that bill passed by the parliament, I respect the decision made by that parliament at the time. This bill does not change that at all, but it adds two new activities, both of which were recommended by the Lockhart review. The first of these, which is not controversial, fixes an ambiguity in the 2002 law. In IVF programs embryos are often created that are unsuitable for transplantation because of, for example, genetic flaws, and these are usually disregarded. This bill allows those so-called ‘fresh’ embryos to be used for research purposes along with those that will be discarded at a later date. The second new activity is more contentious and I believe it is also much more misunderstood. When people contact me about human cloning and creating embryos for harvesting, they are talking about somatic cell nuclear transfer and they are seeing it in a way which I do not. While I cover this area I will refer to some of the views that I have encountered and have had to consider in my decision to support this bill. The 2002 bill put a moratorium on somatic cell nuclear transfer, which this bill lifts under the strictest of conditions. The ethical dilemmas surrounding the issue of embryonic stem cell research or somatic cell nuclear transfer are founded in individual definitions of when and how life is created. Somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, technology involves taking the nucleus of a somatic cell, such a skin or blood cell, and implanting it into an egg from which the nucleus has been removed. I have received letters concerned about the use of animal eggs, but that is specifically banned by this bill. We are talking in this bill about a human egg from which the nucleus has been removed and in which a human somatic cell, such as a skin or blood cell, has been implanted. Then the cell is forced to divide through chemical and physical stimulation. Under a purely scientific definition, these dividing cells are embryos, but in my mind there is a great difference between a human embryo created through the fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm and a cell forced to divide by somatic cell nuclear transfer. Whether such a dividing cell would develop into a foetus and then a person is questionable. It is not known whether this cellular entity would develop into a baby if implanted in a womb, but it does have the theoretical potential to create a human life and it was the technology used to create Dolly the sheep. But, under this legislation, this cellular entity cannot develop into a foetus or a baby. For a start, the bill only allows such entities to be created for the development of specific embryonic stem cell lines, such as is currently legal in Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom and Sweden. I have had letters from constituents concerned that SCNT technology is a slippery slope that will lead to human cloning, but this bill specifically bans human cloning and introduces safeguards that do not allow technology to be developed that would lead to the cloning of humans. Such a thing would be abominable and is rightly banned. We do not know whether or not SCNT or a comparable process would result in the birth of a human clone. All around the world human cloning is banned, and this bill bans it in this country. Human cloning and the process that might—and I do stress ‘might’—give rise to this process are still outlawed in Australia and any breach faces heavy fines. And so it should. For starters, the cellular entity created by SCNT must not be allowed to develop beyond 14 days. The period of 14 days is chosen because, after that period, a primitive streak might develop. At this stage the embryo is called a blastocyst and consists of about 100 cells. According to scientists, the primitive streak is the first sign within the dividing cells of a multicellular structure that signals life and, if the primitive streak is allowed to continue to develop, it may become the basis of a nervous system. By ensuring that the cellular entities are not allowed to develop beyond 14 days, we are ensuring that science cannot explore the possibility of cloning humans. It is simply out of the question. This bill will not give scientists free rein to experiment as they like. It introduces strict rules governing the use of these cells. Secondly, a licence must be issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council licensing committee in accordance with strict legislated criteria. In making this decision about a licence, the council will consider what the intended use of the cells is. So far in Australia there are very few licences—only nine have been issued, all to highly reputable organisations with substantial track records in research. For example, one licence has been issued to IVF Australia and the Prince of Wales diabetes transplant unit to create stem cell lines from frozen embryos that will be used in a range of diabetes tests. I have also received letters from constituents arguing that stem cell research is not necessary because of the existence of adult stem cell research. Reports from the science community give us a different story. There are two areas of research that are different, and one reason for using the technique of somatic cell nuclear transfer is to create an entity that is genetically identical to the donor of the adult cell to generate stem cells identical to the donor with the theoretical capacity to grow into tissue that the donor will not reject. Stem cell research is still in its early phases and I do not believe it is right to exclude it from consideration because in the first three or four years it has not achieved extraordinary results. In the field of medical research it can take 20 or 30 years to achieve the kinds of results that will bring real benefits. You can tell from what I have said already that, with restrictions in place, both embryos from the IVF program and eggs will be relatively rare. I have received letters from constituents concerned that because they are rare women will be exploited for their eggs. Again, this cannot happen under this bill. The bill continues the current ban on the trade and commodification of human eggs, sperm and embryos. Again, because eggs and embryos will be extremely rare, the bill requires the minister to report to parliament on the establishment of a national stem cell bank and a national register of donated excess ART embryos. The purpose of this is to make sure that researchers know what research is being done so that these rare gifts to the science community and to people suffering from appalling illnesses will be used in the best possible way. On the whole, I am incredibly impressed by the work that Senators Patterson, Webber and Stott Despoja have done in putting this bill together. It is an extremely difficult area that attracts comment from a wide range of people with extremely diverse views. I believe this bill charts a very careful path. It also requires further review in the future. It assumes that, as science changes and develops, so too must we review when and how we deal with this quite complex and ethical dilemma of exploring solutions to health problems in an area which profoundly moves people to one position or another. In summing up, I think this bill charts a very careful path. It is very carefully thought through and a really good piece of legislation. I commend it to the House. 143 19:53:00 Baird, Bruce, MP MP6 Cook LP 1 0 Mr BAIRD —I rise in support of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I congratulate those in the other place, particularly Senators Patterson and Stott Despoja, for bringing forward this legislation. This bill is clearly consistent with the recommendations of the Lockhart review, which proposed that most of the current prohibitions on stem cell research should remain. While the previous legislative changes in this area have allowed, for research, the use of excess embryos created for IVF under licence, the Lockhart review recommended allowing research into the fertilisation of human eggs by human sperm up to the first cell division in order to improve IVF technology. It also recommended that fresh ART embryos—that is, embryos that are used for IVF—determined to be unsuitable for implantation should be permitted for use in research and for improvements in clinical practice. Most significantly, the Lockhart review recommended the creation and use of human embryo clones for research under licence, as long as they are not fertilised by human sperm and human egg and they are not implanted into the body of a woman. They must also not be allowed to develop for more than 14 days. This bill would allow these key recommendations under strict licence. The recommendations of the review were sensible. They considered carefully the need to balance community values, both in terms of moral principles and community support, with continuing advancements in medical research and technology. There is no doubt that this bill deals with a deeply personal and highly emotive aspect of science and morality. There is no question though that the community largely sees the advancement of medical science to help to cure or to treat disease as a major priority. This bill presents great hope for so many people. This kind of research has great potential to help improve treatment and even to cure diseases like diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, muscular dystrophy and motor neurone disease—and, of course, there are many more diseases. The potential is great, but it is important not to overstate or exaggerate. Stem cell research and therapeutic cloning are not the miraculous answer to all of mankind’s medical problems and advances will occur over many years. This type of research will not cure diseases overnight. As Australian of the Year Ian Frazer has said, the fruits of this research may be enjoyed by those not yet afflicted by these diseases. Yet the potential is quite remarkable. Therapeutic cloning provides a unique opportunity to help understand the causes of diseases and, therefore, has the potential to improve treatment and the quality of life of sufferers. Then there is the potential even to cure illness entirely. Embryonic stem cell research has advanced substantially since its first use in 1998. Researchers have coaxed human embryonic stem cells to produce mature cells, including cardiac, pancreatic and neuronal cells. There have been promising results from embryonic stem cells being transplanted into animal models of human ailments such as Parkinson’s, spinal cord injury and diabetes. Therapeutic cloning has also determined the ability to restore function to damaged tissues in animal models of Parkinson’s and immunodeficiency. There is no doubt that we should be encouraged by these developments. I believe that we must embrace these medical advances and do all we can to increase their profile and scope. There are many Australians whose lives could be changed for the better. I am aware of the argument put forward by opponents of this legislation that therapeutic cloning represents the destruction of human life. I do not accept that. Compassion, not moral fundamentalism, should be our guiding principle. Somatic cell nuclear transfer is not creating human life in the way I understand human life to be defined. The injection of DNA into a female egg is not the same as human sperm and a human egg conceiving life. This much is clear to me. In fact, the High Court in the United Kingdom ruled in 2001 that an embryo created through the process of therapeutic cloning is not defined as human life. Using a human egg, a tissue cell, a skin cell or some other kind of cell is cloned. In my mind, this is different from a human sperm and a human egg. This cloned cell is not a fertilised egg. It will never be implanted in a woman or an animal. It will not develop for more than 14 days. I have no moral difficulty in accepting this practice, particularly as it offers the hope of easing human suffering. There are many opponents to this bill and they are very noisy opponents. They, of course, invoke the right to life. Yet, when I consider the plight of many Australians at home and abroad, the plight of so many people around the world today and the immense suffering that is out there, I think those who speak of a right to life have a very narrow focus. There are much broader aspects to preserving life. In the Darfur region of Africa, up to 450,000 people have been killed in acts of genocide and another four million are now relying solely on international aid to survive. Last year in China, conservative estimates are that 1,770 people were executed and another 3,900 were sentenced to death, even for non-violent crimes such as tax fraud, embezzlement and accepting a bribe. Meanwhile, Iran executed 94 people, Saudi Arabia executed 86 and the United States executed 60; 47 children have been executed in Iran and Saudi Arabia in the past 15 years. Around the world, about 30,000 children die each day, mainly of preventible causes. That is 11 million children a year—the greatest number in sub-Saharan Africa and an almost equal number in our region, the Asia-Pacific, where 40 million people do not have access to clean water and two million children under than the age of five are expected to die in the next 10 years. In Cambodia the infant mortality rate is 96 per 1,000 births. This is in our own region, home to 14 of the world’s least developed countries. When we talk about a right to life, we have a responsibility to remember children in Sierra Leone and Somalia; or Sudanese people, who are subject to acts of genocide; and those who face execution in China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. We have a responsibility to those 4.7 million children who died this year in abject poverty throughout the Asia-Pacific region. These people all have a right to life and, in our relative comfort, they are too easy to forget. As a society, we are certainly not doing enough to preserve life in these areas. Those of us who are concerned with preserving life need to focus on these types of issues—not just issues of gay marriage, abortion or therapeutic cloning—and to fight for the lives of the many millions of people around the world, and even in our own region, who cannot guarantee their own survival. As a developed, wealthy nation we have access to the very best and most advanced medical and scientific research and technology. With such remarkable progress being made in the area of stem cell research in such a short period of time, it would be remiss of us to close the door on the possibility of great advances in the treatment of disease. There are a lot of unfounded claims about what this legislation will, in practice, allow. Let it be clear that this bill will retain existing prohibitions on placing a cloned human embryo in the body of a human or an animal. The bill will continue to prohibit the import or export of cloned cells. The bill will continue to prevent the creation of a human embryo by the fertilising of a human egg by human sperm for any purpose other than the pregnancy of a woman. The bill will not allow human embryos to be placed in an animal or vice versa. The bill also will not allow the creation of embryos from a human egg and a human sperm that contain genetic material of more than two people. The bill contains strong and exhaustive safeguards. This legislation does not put us on a slippery slope to human cloning. There will be no Frankenstein-like creatures in our midst. Many opponents of the bill, both inside and outside the parliament, have made wild claims about the calamitous outcomes for humankind to be found in stem cell research and therapeutic cloning. In doing so, they have confused the real issue at hand and scared many people off a research technique that has great potential for the advancement of human life. This legislation is also about the right to life—the potential for a better quality of life. It represents an opportunity not just to preserve life but to enhance life as well. I commend this bill to the House. 145 20:02:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP Minister for Small Business and Tourism 1 0 FRAN BAILEY —I remember as if it was just yesterday the words of the medical specialists who informed me soon after the birth of my first daughter that her critical, life-threatening condition was due to something called long-segment Hirschsprung’s disease. Within the first few days of her life she underwent the first of many major operations, each designed to give her a better chance of survival throughout the early years of her life but none with the ability to cure her condition or to provide a positive prognosis. That was because Hirschsprung’s disease means that the ganglion cells that provide the nerves that enable both the large and small bowel to function by absorbing nutrients, and therefore to sustain life, are either not present or are nerveless and prevent the intestinal tract from functioning. As a young mother I quickly learned to believe in the fighting spirit of my tiny daughter as time and time again she defied the predictions of the doctors and she survived. She taught me what hope really means. This was obviously a very distressing period for my family as we struggled daily to come to terms with not only the possibility of losing our daughter but also the sort of future she might have. Today that tiny little baby is a successful and inspiring young woman with a feisty and determined nature and a zest for life that few of us could ever hope to achieve. But life has not been easy for her and she will continue to face and overcome many challenges in the future. My daughter was born into a world where man had already landed on the moon, where jets could fly at speeds that broke the sound barrier, where telecommunications had been developed and miniaturised to such an extent that the world was just one global village, where drugs had been developed to eradicate diseases like polio and tuberculosis and where antibiotics were commonplace. When I asked my daughter’s specialists why there was not a treatment that could help her, they patiently explained to me that one day science may discover how to treat damaged human tissue. That day is now not far off if we allow our scientists, as do scientists in the United Kingdom, Sweden, some states in the USA, Israel, China and Singapore, to continue their research and to use not just adult and embryonic stem cells but also somatic cell nuclear transfer, known as SCNT. And that, of course, is what this debate is about here in this chamber today—whether to allow our scientists, under the most strict scientific, legal and ethical protocols, to develop SCNT to produce cells for research and, ultimately, for therapy. There has been much debate about cloning technology and I want to state for the record that I do not under any circumstance condone the cloning of human beings, which must be developed from a fertilised egg, but I do support applying this technology to enable scientists to develop cells from an unfertilised egg that can be used to treat damaged or diseased tissue in humans. This legislation, the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, provides for the development of SCNT by using an unfertilised egg as an incubator for up to 14 days under the strictest regulations. The legislation that this House passed in 2002 allowed for the creation of human embryonic stem cell lines from fertilised human eggs that were surplus to the needs of IVF implantation, and they could never be implanted in a woman’s uterus. This legislation would allow the creation of human embryonic stem cells derived from an unfertilised human egg using the SCNT process, which would also never be allowed to be implanted in a woman’s uterus. This legislation would allow our scientists to understand the causes of disease and to provide for a better quality of life by developing treatments for disease. Most importantly, it has the potential to enable our scientists to develop cures for diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, cystic fibrosis, heart disease, motor neurone disease and many others, including Hirschsprung’s disease. All those years ago when I had my daughter I never dreamt that one day I would have the opportunity to stand in our national parliament and vote to give our scientists the means to improve not just my daughter’s life but the lives of so many of our Australian citizens. It is with great hope that I support this legislation. 147 20:09:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 0 Ms GRIERSON —I rise today to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I support the bill and the hope it offers for many Australians. Firstly, I would like to commend Senator Patterson for her work in presenting this private member’s bill so that we can finally deal with the recommendations of the Lockhart review, which were released in December last year. I would also like to commend Senators Webber and Stott Despoja for their work in putting forward other proposals and all senators who contributed thoughtfully to improve this debate. Listening to the speakers so far in the debate in the House of Reps, I know that most members of the House are also approaching this legislation with careful consideration. Although the public may not always appreciate it, given the theatre of question time shenanigans and personality based reporting on the nightly news, members of parliament do take their responsibilities seriously. They come to Canberra from all around this great nation to deliberate on issues and to make laws based on those deliberations, but absolutely none of us come to this place equipped with all the knowledge we are going to need on all of the issues that we are going to face. Our backgrounds are diverse. I was a principal, several here are lawyers, some are doctors and others are from diverse employer and employee backgrounds. Our professional and work backgrounds shape how we approach issues, as do some of our religious and ethical beliefs and perhaps our family history and personal experiences. But as far as I know none of us here are biomedical scientists or experts on human cloning or embryo research. It is not our job to be scientists; it is our job to make sure that our scientists have the ethical and legal framework in which to responsibly and safely pursue vital medical research for the benefit of all the people of this nation. So on this issue, like on many of the issues that come before us, expert advice is correctly sought. When the time came for the review of the act that the legislation before us today is to amend, we did call in the experts. The review was conducted by the late John Lockhart, a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia, and the review committee included a clinical ethicist, a specialist gastroenterologist, a clinical neurologist, a neuroscientist, a lawyer and an ethicist. Not only was this a committee of experts, but it also received over 1,000 submissions. It held public hearings in every state and territory, held facilitated consultations and undertook site visits. It was a comprehensive review to determine whether there had been developments in the technology, scientific research, potential therapeutic applications and community standards surrounding the issues covered by the original act. The committee unequivocally found that there had been. At the time of the review report’s release, Justice Lockhart said: The Committee has concluded that, based on its wide consultations, there is a need for an augmentation of the current system to allow research, within a rigorous ethical framework, into emerging scientific practices that will assist in the understanding of disease and disability. It made 54 recommendations, and most of these recommendations are reflected in the legislation we have before us today. As Justice Lockhart’s statement suggests, a rigorous ethical framework is being maintained. The legislation will retain existing prohibitions on: placing a human embryo clone in the human body or the body of an animal; importing or exporting a human embryo clone; creating a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm for a purpose other than achieving pregnancy in women; creating or developing a human embryo by fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm which contains genetic material provided by more than two persons; developing a human embryo outside the body of a woman for more than 14 days; making heritable alterations to a human genome; collecting a viable human embryo from the body of a woman; creating or developing a chimeric embryo; developing a hybrid embryo beyond 14 days; placing a human embryo in an animal, a human embryo into the body of a human other than into the female reproductive tract or an animal embryo in a human; and importing, exporting or placing in the body of a woman a prohibited embryo. That is an extensive list of prohibitions. But let us be clear: this bill specifically prohibits human cloning for reproductive purposes. We will not see cloned babies being born. This bill also prohibits hybrid embryos being developed beyond 14 days. We will not see unformed part-human creatures being born. So we have strong prohibitions and protections remaining in place. These prohibitions and protections will never satisfy some of those people who are running scare campaigns on this issue, trying to whip up fear in the community. But I do believe that these prohibitions and protections will satisfy those people who have rationally addressed this issue and raised those concerns. As with the last time these issues came before the parliament, I have received a large number of representations from my constituents both for and against this legislation. While I do not agree with all of them, I respect the views of all the people of Newcastle, and I thank them for taking the trouble to contact me. However, I have to say straight up that, having considered the evidence, having considered the expert advice, having considered the opinions of my constituents and, indeed, having searched my own conscience, I do not believe the risks are so great that we have to abandon this worthwhile line of scientific research. People have said that this line of research is unethical. I do not believe that it is. I believe that it is more unethical for us to abandon these lines of research. I believe it would be unethical to give up on potential cures for disease, to give up on the hope that many people living with disease and disability rightly have for a cure or reversal of their condition. I recall that only last month many members in this place hosted children from their electorates who are living with juvenile diabetes. I met with a young ambassador from Newcastle, a young girl who was living with the disease. This brave young person faces a daily regime of insulin injections and blood glucose level monitoring while rigorously following a healthy diet and exercising regularly. The message from the kids who came to Parliament House that day was that they would rather have a cure for diabetes than a million dollars. It was a message of hope, and I guess it was a plea to us. We should not give up on that hope. Juvenile diabetes is one of those diseases and disabilities, along with others such as spinal cord injury, motor neurone disease, Rett syndrome and Parkinson’s disease, for which we should be looking for cures in every possible direction. This bill allows us to do that. Under the new laws, scientists must apply for a licence from the National Health and Medical Research Council to: use excess assisted reproductive technology embryos; create human embryos other than by fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm, and to use such embryos; create human embryos by a process other than fertilisation of a human egg by human sperm containing genetic material provided by more than two persons, and use such embryos; create human embryos using precursor cells from a human embryo or a human foetus, and use such embryos; undertake research and training involving the fertilisation of a human egg, up to but not including the first mitotic division, outside the body of a woman for the purposes of research or training; and create hybrid embryos by the fertilisation of an animal egg by human sperm, and develop such embryos up to, but not including, the first mitotic division provided that the creation or use is for the purposes of testing sperm quality and will occur in an accredited ART centre. The uses of embryos under such licences may only be authorised for development up to 14 days. In no circumstances may any embryo be developed outside the body of a woman beyond 14 days. So what we are putting in place is a regime that the experts have recommended is the best regime to ensure our scientists can investigate new techniques and possibilities in a strongly regulated framework. Our scientists will now be able to investigate cures for disease by using embryonic stem cells rather than just adult stem cells. This is one of the key changes being proposed in this legislation. This parliament asked the Lockhart committee to recommend any changes we needed to make to keep up with technological advancements, and this is one of those areas. The Lockhart review concluded: ... based especially on the evidence of experts working directly in one or both fields of stem cell research ... that further research involving both adult and embryonic stem cells is required to improve knowledge and to develop effective disease treatments. Well, bring it on. While acknowledging that some advances had been made using research into adult stem cells—and some of those have been at the University of Newcastle—the report found that those advances are going to be much more limited than the advances possible if we look at embryonic cells as well. What the review is saying is that we should not be limiting our avenues of research. This is a position upon which patient advocacy groups agree. I am proud to be a co-convenor of the Parliamentary Friends of Dementia, and in that role I work closely with Alzheimer’s Australia. This is an advocacy group that works extremely hard in raising awareness of dementia. Alzheimer’s Australia regularly comes to Canberra to lobby for more research into how to combat this disease which will in the future greatly affect more and more of our ageing population. Alzheimer’s Australia has released a position paper in support of the Lockhart recommendations, particularly supporting the maintenance of the strong regulatory framework while allowing our scientists to use the most promising avenues of research. Neurodegenerative disorders—Parkin-son’s disease, Huntington’s disease and motor neurone disease, all of which can result in dementia—are known to be among the most promising candidates for stem cell based therapies. Motor neurone disease is currently being studied with some success using therapeutic cloning techniques in the UK. Under this legislation our scientists will be able to pursue this therapeutic cloning, also known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. The process involves the transfer of the nucleus from an adult cell into an empty egg in order to generate embryonic cells. The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Australia, CAMRA, another patient advocacy group, says that this research has enormous potential medical benefit in genetic diseases, diseases of old age and serious injuries. CAMRA therefore supports the ban on reproductive cloning but supports therapeutic cloning. So does the Australian Academy of Science, which represents Australia’s leading scientists. The academy says that while adult stem cells have the advantages of proven safety and the absence of immune rejection, embryonic stem cells have the advantage of being able to make every kind of cell in the body and to multiply indefinitely. It has therefore arrived at the conclusion that both forms of research need to proceed to maximise the chances of developing medical applications. The academy also points out that a number of prominent stem cell scientists have left Australia, unfortunately, to work in less restrictive environments overseas. Australia should be encouraging our top scientists to stay here. It is in Australia’s national interest that our brightest minds are working on projects in Australia. The current ban on therapeutic cloning prohibits our scientists from being involved in some of the most cutting edge research on the globe, and is a perverse incentive for them to leave this country. This is a loss for our scientific community, our national interest and, most of all, the patients who are looking to these researchers in the hope of a cure. It is not just the scientists who support the legislation before us today. In the course of its review, the Lockhart committee was asked to examine public attitudes to these issues and found a growth in acceptance of the use of human stem cells derived from embryos and from adults. Between 2002 and 2005, the percentage of Australians who approve or strongly approve of human stem cells being derived from embryos increased from 53 per cent to 65 per cent. For adult stem cells, the increase was from 70 per cent to 78 per cent. Support for human cloning remained at eight per cent over the same period. This clearly shows that the public is aware of the difference between cloning for reproductive purposes and cloning for therapeutic purposes. They understand that the joys, heartache and responsibilities of parenting are a very different debate and that this bill in no way detracts from parenthood or the sanctity of human life. It also shows a majority in favour of research involving both embryonic and adult stem cells. A Research Australia poll released last month also shows majority support for both forms of research. The legislation before us, then, fairly reflects community attitudes on this issue; it reflects the opinion of the scientists in this field; it reflects the considered view of the Lockhart committee of experts; and it reflects the majority view of senators in that place. Some have suggested the closeness of the Senate vote means that we should be wary of passing this legislation or that we should send it back to the Senate for further consideration. I cannot agree. In our democracy, one vote is all that is needed. We cannot claim that a close vote in the Senate means that the result is somehow invalid or that it does not reflect the will of that place. There have been plenty of close votes since the coalition gained its majority in the Senate. We did not send back the industrial relations laws, the Welfare to Work legislation or the Telstra sale just because the vote was close. I wish we could but we cannot, because that is the nature of our democracy. I wish we could have had another election back in 1998 when Labor won a majority of votes but not a majority of seats. We cannot. Everyone in this place is here as a result of our strong democratic processes. We all accept this process, as do the Australian people. Our democracy is strong, and a conscience vote such as this often brings out the best in our parliamentarians. This conscience vote has also allowed many members to share their personal and often private experiences. This is right and necessary. This is the human way forward and always improves our decisions. After all, every decision we take here in some way impacts on this country and on every Australian. It is important that Australians know that, just like them, our friends or perhaps our families or we as individuals have experienced the hardships and tragedies that impact on human lives. In my own life, mental illness has run a dreadful course with some of my dearest family members. I have shared the pain of friends whose much adored children live with schizophrenia. I have felt the heartache of mothers-to-be in my close circle faced with the choice of termination on the knowledge that their much wanted baby will be born with a serious, life-affecting condition. As a principal, I have watched so many children and their families courageously deal with severe disabilities and afflictions. I have tried to aid many constituents who suffer the burden of caring for loved ones with dementia and all types of medical afflictions or those who need special support because of their own medical condition. In all conscience, I could not live with myself if I did not give my strongest support to advancing the medical research that may one day free them from this suffering and anguish. Once again, I thank all my colleagues who have made thoughtful and sensible contributions. I would like to leave this debate with one simple message, and that is a message of hope. It is my great hope that we pass this legislation; it is my very great hope that, once we do, our best scientists will pursue those avenues of research that are currently not open to them; and it is my very great hope that, when they do, we will see breakthroughs and discoveries that will lead to cures for some of the most problematic diseases and disabilities that our people face—spinal cord injury, juvenile diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, muscular dystrophy, heart disease, osteoporosis, leukaemia, Rett syndrome and burns complications. The list is so long. Many people living with these diseases and disabilities have nothing else except hope, and that is what this is legislation is all about: hope. I commend this bill to the House. 151 20:27:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP Minister for Workforce Participation 1 0 Dr STONE —I also rise to support the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006, following the very important contribution from the member for Newcastle. Parliament of course addressed these issues back in 2002, when we voted to allow excess embryos from in-vitro fertilisation to be used for research but to ban the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of scientific research. We also banned the cloning of humans or the creation of human hybrids. The Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 each contain the provision that two years after royal assent an independent review of the acts’ operation would be undertaken. The acts were reviewed by six eminent Australians whose participation was with the agreement of each state. I spoke in support of the 2002 legislation and I speak with even more conviction in support of this new bill four years later. In those four years my family has grown. I have watched over the birth of my seven grandchildren. Three of these beautiful babies needed intensive medical intervention to survive. I have met hundreds more of my constituents, sadly many of whom suffer daily from injury or disease. They have often cruel and unrelenting conditions that leave them in a state where life is a living hell. I hope what we do this week will help our scientists find cures. I will do anything in my power to ensure that our research scientists have a well-resourced environment in which to work and that our legislation surrounds that research with the proper conditions to ensure that there are no unexpected or untoward outcomes from trying to find ways to treat some of the most difficult and debilitating conditions known to mankind. The debate that ensued following the release of the recommendations of the eminent persons committee—the Lockhart inquiry—ran along now familiar lines. Submissions against any form of embryonic stem cell research argued that such research was unethical, as it involves the destruction of the embryo, and they felt that that raised right to life issues. For those holding such beliefs, fully human life includes an embryo and as such it should never be manipulated or in other way used. Others were concerned that allowing embryos to be used for research purposes could lead to their commoditisation, with women pressured to sell embryos in a way similar to the sale of human organs in some developing countries. There was also concern that somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT, could lead us irrevocably towards human reproductive cloning. Many argued that embryonic stem cell research was unnecessary as research on adult stem cells could achieve the same results. Finally, some argued that any anticipation of cures for diseases or injury recovery through embryonic stem cell research was misplaced, and so we should ban that research. Some probably said the same thing about a cure for smallpox or TB many years ago. My strong support for this bill in the House comes from my satisfaction that we will continue to have in place proper and adequate protection to ensure that human clones do not occur. Human cloning is abhorrent to most Australians, and indeed our own Australian scientists making submissions to the inquiry made it patently clear that they have no interest in pursuing human reproductive cloning. Rather, their interest was in the medical benefits that could potentially be derived from the nuclear transfer process. Given that this bill continues to make human reproductive cloning illegal, I am satisfied that we have adequately and comprehensively dealt with this concern. In this great liberal democracy of ours, I believe that we should allow couples involved in assisted reproductive treatment procedures to choose what is done with their own excess or no longer needed genetic material. I believe that women are able to make informed decisions about the use of their own genetic material and their bodies. The Lockhart review report concluded that the overwhelming human good that could flow from new therapies to treat some of the cruellest and now untreatable conditions of adults and children more than prevailed over the practical or ethical concerns of some others who do not wish to see such research occur. The committee concluded: The social and moral value that some communities attach to the human embryo needs to be balanced against the social and moral value that other communities attach to the treatment of disease, and to helping people to have a family. In conclusion, I support this bill because of the good it might do in relieving suffering and distress in human populations. All medical research has begun decades from its final outcomes. We cannot expect cures tomorrow, but we must persist in giving our scientists every assistance in pursuing what is for the human good. The egg donation will be voluntary. These eggs are not fertilised by sperm. The eggs may be excess ones, no longer needed eggs from a woman undergoing IVF treatment or derived from ovaries removed for medical reasons. The bill ensures that the current requirement of informed consent prevails and there will be a strict prohibition of the sale of eggs and embryos. Obviously, those who oppose such research will always have the right to refuse treatments developed through such Australian or international research. That is their right. I also respect their values and their position on what are commonly called the right to life issues. But I believe that there is a stronger and more important imperative, and that is to relieve human suffering wherever we can. I believe in an individual’s right to a pain-free, dignified, good life. We have an excellence in medical research in this country. May the passing of this bill lead to a diminution in human suffering and, in the meantime, an elevation of hope for those to whom fate has dealt a cruel blow. Whether it is their babies, their children, their elderly parents, their friends or their family who are suffering, may they understand with the passing of this bill that we in the Australian parliament care profoundly about the future of the human condition of Australians. At the same time, we will have strong guidelines and legislation ensuring that this research continues appropriately. I thank the House. 153 20:34:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP 0 0 Mr TANNER —In the debate on the bill with respect to stem cell experimentation in 2002, I expressed concerns about the gradual extension of moral boundaries that was being undertaken in that piece of legislation. I have greater concerns with respect to the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 which is before us tonight. I will ultimately vote in favour of this bill and I hope that it passes. But I hold serious reservations about the path that we are heading down and therefore I—along, I suspect, with a number of others—would caution that it will take a lot of persuading to take us any further than this particular position. Once we opened the door to scientific interference with the process of procreation through the inauguration of IVF, we opened up a range of possibilities. What we are seeing is the gradual extension of those possibilities. We saw that in the 2002 stem cell legislation and more recently in the debate about this legislation that is before the parliament this evening. In the debate in 2002 I pointed out the difficulty that we faced then and that inevitably we will always face when we are dealing with these kinds of matters: once you allow for scientific intervention in the creation of human life—as we did with the inauguration of in vitro fertilisation—that opens up new possibilities, which in turn create scope for controversy and debate as to whether or not those possibilities should be available to be used. That in turn leads to new anomalies, new difficulties and new controversies. For example, in that speech—and I apologise for the indulgence of quoting my own words from Hansard but I think that it is important—I said: ... if we allow the creation of what are deemed surplus embryos, it seems to me that it is not morally repugnant to seek to use those embryos for a noble purpose—namely, experimentation with a view to improving human life—if the alternative use is that they are simply to be destroyed in any event. The difficulty is, though, that once we allow that we then create a problem of distinguishing that from embryo farming and creating embryos for the purpose of scientific research rather than for the direct purpose of procreation. In order to distinguish one from the other, we end up in a position where we are making definitions based on intent so that it is acceptable to experiment on an embryo that is created for other purposes but it is not acceptable to experiment on an embryo that is created for the purpose of experimentation ... that is a fine distinction and one that, in the longer term—sadly, I think—will be difficult to maintain. Therein lies the challenge that we face with these issues: ensuring that we make rules and draw lines that are sustainable and logical. Therefore I find it perhaps not surprising that we are here this evening debating this legislation. In effect, the perspective I adopted in 2002 about the difficulty that this legislation would create has been the driving element in the argument with respect to the legislation before us. My concern is that although we may move beyond that particular anomalous distinction that that legislation created, we are opening up new and in some respects more difficult moral dilemmas. I must confess that I was troubled by the original legislation that was introduced into the Senate, but I am pleased with the amendments that were made in the Senate and therefore I feel that I can vote for the legislation. Frankly, I am not sure how I would have dealt with the original legislation had it not been amended in the way it has been. I am pleased that those amendments have occurred. The crucial question here for this parliament is whether we adhere to a basic philosophical position that ultimately boils down to the proposition that the ends justify the means. Morality of whatever kind, of whatever description we choose to give to it, does have a crucial role in the decisions that we make in this parliament—no more so than with respect to matters associated with the creation or destruction of human life. That does not have to be morality as defined by particular religious adherents. Morality simply as an expression of a humanistic point of view—even a very strictly secular point of view—can be just as deeply held and just as philosophically based as a more strictly religious based notion of morality. But, one way or another, the key dynamic underneath the choices that we face with this legislation is ultimately between a more utilitarian perspective, which at its most extreme ends up in a position of the end justifying the means, and one that emphasises the moral or ethical dimension that has its basis in philosophical concepts of human nature and human dignity, with or without a particular religious dimension. For example, there are certain things that the vast majority of people in this country and other countries find morally repugnant and therefore reject without actually asking the question: could we as a society benefit from those things? We recoil with repugnance from some of the medical experiments and the eugenics experiments under Nazism. There were infamous attempts to create pure Aryans with children that were the product of deliberate breeding of people of supposedly pure Aryan stock and medical experiments by some of the more infamous Nazi doctors. Quite rightly, we do not start our examination of those issues by asking: could we as a species or as a society gain something from this? We recoil morally, because that is repugnant. I am not suggesting for a moment that the proposals that are before the House are in the same category as those, but I am using that to illustrate how it is an incorrect way of looking at things to start from a utilitarian perspective only and then worry about moral or ethical questions later. In my view, if there is a clear moral or ethical dimension to a matter, as there obviously is in this case, that has to be our starting point. So in many respects the impassioned and entirely legitimate debate about the prospective benefits of stem cell research is a little bit beside that point, in the sense that if it is morally wrong to undertake particular activities then that is the pivotal question. That is the issue that we have to resolve. As a society, do we draw a line and say that we do not wish to undertake this particular kind of activity, irrespective of what we may materially gain from it? The debates about slavery in the 18th and 19th centuries were ultimately about morality, and the question of economic issues—which did actually figure in some debates about slavery—was always a subsidiary question. The first question that we must ask ourselves in this situation is: is this right or wrong? That is not an easy question to answer, but it is important that we do not simply rush headlong down the path of scientific experimentation on ourselves, no matter what the prospective benefits may be, without asking ourselves the question: is this morally right? Equally, the argument that comes from sections of the opposition to this legislation and, indeed, to equivalent experimentation—that it is unnecessary and therefore it should be illegal—is clearly illogical. We do not ban things because they are unnecessary; we ban them because they are wrong. The notion that somehow everything that may be required or produced by experimentation on embryonic stem cells can equally be done by adult stem cells is neither here nor there. That is in my view an entirely irrelevant consideration. We do not ban things because there are alternative ways of achieving the same objective; we ban things because they are wrong. So the onus is on those who oppose the legislation to argue the case that this is wrong. I mentioned that question of morality and the role of the churches. Once again I want to place on the record that even though some of the churches—and possibly most of them; I have not done a tally—have a different point of view from me on this particular legislation, I welcome their contribution to these debates. I think it is extremely important for legislators of whatever party that, when we are confronted with these challenging new issues and when new frontiers are being explored, religious organisations—whose job it is to puzzle over moral dilemmas, to think deeply about the future of humanity and to express a wider view about how we should deal with each other—bring perspectives to the debate. I do not particularly care that those perspectives will sometimes—perhaps often—be different from mine. So I welcome again the contribution that the various churches make to this discussion. There is a wider issue that is the primary cause for my concern. It is why, although I do intend to vote for this legislation, it is going to take a lot of persuading in the future to get me to go any further down this path. That issue is that we are, as a society, gradually acquiring the ability to change the nature of what it means to be human. Because of scientific and technological advance, we are gradually getting into a position where we can recreate ourselves as a species. The implications of that are absolutely profound. At some point we may cross a moral boundary, where we will in effect re-engineer what human life is, or what it is to become, in ways that are entirely unpredictable and raise a whole lot of very fundamental questions about the nature of humanity. I fear we are getting close to that point. That is, finally, what this question is about for me: how far do we go down this path of scientific or direct technological interference with the creation of human life and manipulation of ourselves in order to achieve wider benefit for humanity, before we get to a point where we cease to be what we have been? There are already serious moral dilemmas beginning to emerge. Embryos are now being screened for genetic defects. Babies with particular genetic material needed to save the life of an older brother or sister are being engineered—in other words, deliberately created for the purpose of saving human life. Some are even seeking to create babies with disabilities that match their own, such as deafness. Bioethicists such as Julian Savulescu of Oxford University are arguing quite seriously that parents have a moral obligation to create the best child possible. That sends a chill down my spine, but the person putting forward that point of view is a serious philosopher and a serious person in this debate. We should treat those words very seriously. Philosophers are even debating things that might seem a little wacky, such as the implications of a society where sex is no longer necessary for reproduction. We may soon be able to permanently alter our personalities through drug therapies. We may even start to merge with machines or produce hybrid species that are only part human. That sounds ludicrous, I know, but I had the pleasure of meeting and listening to a world renowned scientist, Susan Greenfield, who is an English scientist from Oxford University recently working as a thinker in residence for the South Australian government. She talks of ‘the merging of carbon and silicon systems’—that is, inert and organic matter, such as us as human beings, capable of being merged. Directly connecting our brain cells to computers through body implants could soon be a possibility. Advances in medical science already enable us to radically change our physical appearance. There is a very big question for us as to what society would be like if we were able to, at will, change our innate characteristics or those of our children. There are some pretty obvious concerns about this. We may reduce our genetic diversity, increase our vulnerability to diseases or create much greater intolerance or discrimination against people who for one reason or another are not able to access the technologies that can alter who and what they are. People who have been in some ways engineered may even seek to get rid of those who have not, on the basis that they are in some way defective. The underlying logic of eugenicism is never far below the surface when some of these issues are discussed. It is understandable that we should seek to improve ourselves and, particularly when you listen to some of the impassioned speeches in these debates in this parliament, it is absolutely understandable that people want to support scientific research that may enable us to get rid of or modify some of the appalling diseases and genetic conditions that millions of humans around the world suffer from. But I think we need to be careful in order to ensure that, in doing so, we do not at the same time start to interfere with the unique complexity and diversity of what the human race is. If you want one or two simple illustrations of this, why is it that we go to great lengths to keep drugs out of sport? We use artificial devices for all kinds of things. Why do we keep drugs out of sport—or try to? It is because we value the contest based on genetic chance and individual character more than a contest between scientifically created or engineered human beings. Why do we value extraordinary physical beauty so much? It is because it is scarce—because it is inaccessible. It is subjective but it is inaccessible. If all of us had the capacity to make ourselves beautiful in conventional terms very easily then beauty would cease to mean anything. Why don’t we allow computers to compete in the world chess championships or in art competitions? The answer is simple: because they would then become competitions between computer programs. Scientific advance cannot be stopped, but it can be managed and it can be regulated. I have as much desire as anybody else in this parliament to see advances in cures for some of the appalling diseases and illnesses we suffer. I have three close relatives with Alzheimer’s. It would be of enormous benefit to a huge number of people around the world if research of this kind were to find a cure for that illness. There are many other illnesses that are equally or more serious for which a cure, if we could find it, would be of great benefit to the human race. These are worthy objectives, but we need to be conscious of drawing lines. I, with some reservations, will be voting for this bill, but I do make it very clear that, with regard to anything further in this pattern of legislation that emerges in the future—which I suspect it inevitably will—I will require a great deal of convincing to go further. I am already worried about where this trend is heading and I am already worried about the outer limits of scientific ambit claims as to what should be permissible. Ultimately I believe that there is such a thing as human nature and human dignity and that there are certain things, however irrational it may seem in certain lights, that should be no-go zones for us as the human race. We as a parliament should stand clear in our position that we do not support unfettered scientific interference with the nature of ourselves. 157 20:52:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I rise tonight to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. In the short time allotted for this bill tonight I cannot go into too much detail, so I will quickly cover some of the context to the bill, look at some of the arguments in the cases for and against therapeutic cloning, and then reach my conclusion, which will be that I do not support this bill. Back in 1998 a number of scientific advances caused parliaments around the world to start considering the ramifications of this. The process has continued through the United Nations into the General Assembly to this day. Dr Michael Wooldridge, who was the Minister for Health and Aged Care, tasked the Australian Health and Ethics Committee to report on the scientific, ethical and regulatory considerations relevant to the cloning of human beings. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs reviewed the report and it ended up with the Council of Australian Governments in April 2002. The Prime Minister with all the premiers and chief ministers agreed that the Commonwealth, states and territories should introduce nationally consistent legislation to ban human cloning. This ended up in a couple of bills, which were split. In 2005 the former Federal Court judge, the Hon. John Lockhart AO, was commissioned and made a report with some 54 recommendations. He reviewed what had happened in the whole area of cloning, making some recommendations that were not at all controversial, such as that the ban on reproductive cloning should continue. But there were some recommendations that were controversial, such as allowing under some circumstances things like the creation of hybrid embryos. The Lockhart report also specifically recommended the amendment of definitions of what an embryo was. There were a number of things in those 54 recommendations, some of which nobody has any problem with, but a number that people do. You will be aware that the government decided initially that there would be no action. Hence a private member’s bill was put forward for action and that is what we are now addressing. In the case for cloning, what Senator Patterson’s bill is looking for is to reflect the Lockhart review recommendations in a legislative form. This will allow the things Lockhart has put forward. When people actually think them through, the words ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’ are relatively scientific and nonconfronting. But essentially they are talking about therapeutic cloning. One of the outcomes of the bill would even allow some disturbing things, to my mind, such as the harvesting of eggs from aborted babies as a source of eggs for the gathering of embryonic stem cells. Why do they want to do this? For very good and quite commendable reasons: the hope of a cure. We have heard many stories here of people who either have people in their own family or people they know with diseases that are currently considered to be incurable, and they are looking for a cure. It is not a false hope—science is often a process to develop a cure. But I note that Professor Ian Frazer, the Australian of the Year, said that the therapies could not be expected to be available for at least 75 years. So whilst it is a good desire, it is certainly not something that is going to be happening tomorrow. The claim is there that somatic cell nuclear transfer is not cloning. But the deputy chair of the Lockhart review, Professor Skene, admitted to the Senate committee that the product of SCNT is in fact a cloned embryo, because, as the professor said, it is conceivable that that embryo could in fact develop into a foetus if it were implanted. So one of the reasons they say they can move forward is because SCNT does not produce an embryo as we know it. But I believe the Lockhart review has actually refuted that in its report. Those arguing the case for are also claiming that science has advanced since 2002, when this House and this parliament solidly refuted and rejected the concept of therapeutic cloning. But I note that the only peer reviewed report quoted in the Lockhart review was by the Korean researcher, Professor Hwang, and that has been subsequently exposed as being fraudulent. Another argument put forward is that there will be an exodus of minds—that, if we do not allow this in Australia, the best and brightest of our researchers will go overseas. But I note that there are currently some 104,000 human embryos in storage, with around three per cent of these available for research. Since 2002 some 1,750 licences have been issued for research, but only about 178 have been used so far and, of those, only one I believe was aimed at a specific treatment. This, to my mind, begs the question: if all of these embryos and licences are available, then it is hardly pushing the boundary to see a new supply created. Probably one of the more compelling arguments that I have heard as to why we should be prepared to be involved in this if other countries are is the concept of the dilemma of future use. The argument is that, if another country develops a cure for one of these diseases through therapeutic cloning and we have banned the development of it here in Australia, how could we then ethically or morally allow people to have access to that treatment? I do not believe this is a barrier that should determine our decision in this matter. The reason for that is it is not a new dilemma. Before coming into this place, I was an experimental test pilot working for the military, and I was surprised, indeed shocked, to find out that the basis for much of the design work and research surrounding the effects of high altitude on the human body have a basis in work conducted by the Nazis. Following World War II, leading Nazi doctors were brought to justice in the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, and some 20 doctors were charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. These men had decided that the pursuit of science justified the destruction of what they considered to be inferior life forms. In 1942 Dr Sigmund Rascher began a series of hazardous, high-altitude experiments at Dachau involving some 200 prisoners, of which 80 died. In the pursuit of science, he used a decompression chamber and dissected the brains of live prisoners as well as conducting freezing experiments to check how long downed aircrew could last in the sea. We would never conduct this work now—people are horrified by the concept—but I was surprised to note that, after a number of decades of debate around the ethics of it, this information is being used now and still informs the design and the construction of aircrew ensembles and aircraft equipment that many of us fly in to get to this place. So there have been precedents set where research that we would not conduct now has led to results which we are still happy, as a society, to use. To the case against the bill: it is important to outline what people are not against. They are not against stem cell research, because they recognise the hope that it provides for people who have incurable diseases and who hope and desire to see a cure. What they are against is the creation of human life for the specific purpose of destruction in the name of research. Why are they against it? The basis of the case for change has not been established. We live and we operate in an evidence based society, but we do not see a clear chain of evidence showing that the scientific research has moved forward and that the outcomes will be there. The process has flaws. There has been much debate about the supply of eggs—the thousands of eggs that Professor Hwang required—and the risks of egg harvesting and the potential for exploitation. They are against the ethics involved. Lockhart recommends a redefinition of what an embryo is. Where does this 14-day threshold come from? There is some science about cell division, but on what basis do we, as legislators or even scientists, have the right to say that a life form at 13 days has any less value than a life form at 15 days? It is an arbitrary threshold, and one that I do not believe our society has the right to make. Who are we to decide that one particular form of human life is of less value to the pursuit of science and potential benefit that may accrue to others in the future? The implications of passing this bill are another reason to oppose it. To deliberately create human life in order to destroy it crosses an ethical boundary that, once crossed, makes further infringements more acceptable and more likely. As a professional military officer for over 22 years, I am a keen student of military history. Colin Powell is quoted as saying: We should always be sceptical when so-called experts suggest that all a particular crisis calls for is a little surgical bombing or a limited attack. When that ‘surgery’ is over and the desired result is not obtained, a new set of experts then comes forward with talk of just a little escalation—more bombs, more men and women … History has not been kind to this approach to war-making. We see in the General Assembly at the moment evidence of this in this very field. While all of the speakers in this place have said quite categorically that they oppose reproductive cloning, in the General Assembly, other countries—many of whom have quite a lot of respect in the world such as Ireland—voted for reproductive cloning. In fact, of the member nations, one-third voted against it, one-third voted for it and one-third abstained. So potentially the weight of world opinion could take us down the next step, which is looking at reproductive cloning throughout the world. The events in Fiji today exemplify the fact that once you have crossed an ethical boundary—in this case a coup—it is hard to turn back. Sitiveni Rabuka, in 1987 and May 2000, undermined the democratic system there via his first coup, and it has become easier and a simpler way forward for them to repeat that. Rabuka wrote a book about that, saying that there was ‘No other way’ and that was why he did it. In this debate the outcome is my main reason for opposing this bill, in that there is another way. Adult stem cells have proven to be pluripotent and to have fewer issues with rejection and are already being used in 72 research programs for specific treatments. In conclusion, I oppose this bill, firstly, because the case for change is not robust—it has not been well established; secondly, because it involves crossing an ethical boundary with uncertain, but likely and negative, consequences; and, lastly, because there is another way. 160 21:04:00 O’Connor, Gavan, MP WU5 Corio ALP 0 0 Mr GAVAN O’CONNOR —I commend the honourable member for Wakefield for his contribution to the debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. The quality of his speech is testament to the great heights that this House can rise to on occasions where members from all political persuasions are called upon to consider issues of great moment to their constituents and to the society in which they live. I rise to oppose the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill. As I have stated on the floor of this House previously, there are moments in the life of any elected member when we are called on to reflect and consider issues of great moment to the constituents we represent and to the society in which we live. This legislation and this debate is another such occasion. I am grateful on this occasion that my party, the Australian Labor Party, has allowed a conscience vote on the bill, and I do commend members from all sides of the parliament and from right across the political spectrum for the sensitive and genuine way they have considered this momentous issue and debate. In a previous debate some years ago, I lamented the fact that some members of parliament had attempted to politicise these sorts of issues, for what political gain I am still at a loss to discern. I objected to that position at the time, and I do so now because the issue transcends that cheap political point-scoring that too often occurs in considering legislation in this place. I am surprised we are debating this matter again so soon after the previous debate some years ago on stem cells which saw the collective wisdom of the parliament at the time reject human cloning for embryonic stem cell research. At the time of the debate, I recall many members who opposed the second bill, which related to cloning, warning that commercial imperatives and scientific pressures would soon see this matter revisited and back on the political agenda even though the parliament had made a determination in the full expression of the concept of democracy. I am cognisant of the fact that circumstances in life, the sciences and the community change rapidly from time to time, but change without question is sometimes a recipe for grave error. I do not intend to regurgitate for the purposes of this debate the arguments I advanced in the previous one for my opposition to taking the scientific and ethical step inherent in this bill. I think the essence of what I said then applies now. I simply do not see any great imperative to move down this path when the end point can be reached another way and without exciting the moral dilemmas inherent in cloning for stem cell research. I refer here to the successful work already occurring in adult stem cell research. Members might be interested in the excellent stem cell research being undertaken by the Douglas Hocking Research Institute at Barwon Health in the Corio electorate. According to the website of Barwon Health, the institute is: ... investigating the growth and use of cord blood derived stem cells, and particularly the capacity of cord blood derived cells to differentiate into other cell types such as muscle cells and nerve cells. The current focus is examination of culture conditions required to grow primitive stem cells, and exploration of methods for reprogramming cord blood stem cells to display characteristics and growth potential of embryonic stem cells. Researchers are also searching for genes expressed in stem cells and have discovered several novel genes with exciting potential. I am informed that this particular research is very encouraging. It is the sort of research where I think current resources ought to be employed, as it does not raise the intense moral dilemmas that are inherent in the procedures that are at the core of this bill. I suppose the key ethical question for all members to contemplate is a very simple one: exactly where did we begin? It is a question one is able to ask because we all made it through, so to speak, to be able to grow to our adult potential and participate in the affairs of this parliament. I do not think if we were in our embryonic state that many of us here today would be too pleased with a decision made by whomever to curtail the growth of that potential either in the 13th day or the fifth day. I am not insensitive to the suffering of those with chronic disabilities. I am somewhat at a loss to understand, when the evidence strongly favours the use of adult stem cells in such situations, why the stronger scientific push favours experimentation on human embryos. While it might be somewhat easier for proponents of this bill to attempt to paint those who might oppose it as out of step with community standards on the question, it is important for me to put on the public record that the weight of scientific evidence does not overwhelmingly favour the directions inherent in this legislation. There is a large body of doctors, scientists, medical researchers, ethicists and others who oppose the directions that are inherent in this bill. I note that Justice Kirby, the first chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission, believes that a thorough review should be undertaken of the legal and ethical consequences of research being undertaken in this field. I think it is valid to raise the question as to whether only the secular view of this issue has credence in the debate. Certainly the issue of the power of vested commercial and scientific interests has been raised by the manner in which the Lockhart review has been conducted and how this debate has proceeded since then. I refer members to a very interesting two-page article by John Martin on 25 July 2006 entitled ‘Putting the cart before the stem cell’. It is a very succinct challenge to a view in the scientific community that favours cloning for this type of research. John Martin states: Since the licensing system came into place in 2002— and he is talking there about the use of excess embryos from IVF programs— there have been no discoveries through this work, either in Australia or elsewhere, that could support arguments that there is an urgent need for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), also often called “therapeutic cloning”. Since this process involves the deliberate production of a human embryo to experiment on it, SCNT moves the ethical barrier to a much higher level. I think John Martin sums it up pretty well in his concluding paragraph to this two-page article when he asks: ... “is there a compelling reason to undertake this work?” His conclusion is: On present evidence there is none. He goes on to say: If proof of concept can be provided through animal experimentation, perhaps a case for SCNT could be made more convincingly than it can be now, but only, of course, if we accept the questionable utilitarian principle that the end always justifies the means. I think therein lies the crux of the philosophical dilemma that many in this place face in considering this issue. It is not just a question of whether one has a religious disposition or a religious view of the world whereby one comes to question the extension of the barriers to the conduct of this sort of research, because, as I said before, there are many prominent scientists, ethicists and medical researchers who are not of a religious disposition yet can appreciate where this particular piece of legislation might eventually lead our society. So, in summary, what has happened since we last debated this issue that merits a change in position? Is the case for change based on a new premise? No, I do not think so. The debate still revolves around the taking of a potential life for existing life. Our generation thinks it is the only one and is willing to rob future life to sustain present life. It is this kind of thinking that has led to all sorts of problems in all sorts of areas. I think it is time for our society to accept the boundaries of life and work within them. In the meantime, we should be encouraging the sort of research that is taking place in Geelong and other places to find the ways and means to overcome some of those diseases that are debilitating for other members of our community. This is a complex and difficult area for all members, but I am pleased with the way in which this debate has been conducted thus far because I think there is a mutual respect for the views that are taken on both sides of the debate relating to this bill. I make note of the fact that there are many people in this chamber who are not of a particular religious disposition yet who have grave reservations about the process by which the parliament has come yet again to consider these matters. When one has been around this parliament for any length of time—in my case, I was elected in 1993—one does come to understand the power of vested commercial interests and the somewhat spurious reasons that are often advanced to achieve a legislative change that would give them a potential for some commercial advantage at some future date. I suspect that in this instance that unfortunately has been the case. This parliament is now debating a piece of legislation that many of us, in good faith at the time of the last debate some time ago, thought would not be considered yet again after such a short time. This is a very important issue for many of my constituents who, on both sides of the debate, have expressed their views to me, strongly held and carefully thought through. If the views that I have expressed do not agree with those of some constituents, I hope that through the collective reading of the previous debate and the things that I have said in this one they come to understand that, at the end of the day, there is an end point that I want to get to in this stem cell research that might deliver the great benefits to those who suffer from the major diseases that have been mentioned. I think we can get there by resourcing an alternative way—a way that is already proving its worth in this field. I refer to adult stem cell research. I will be opposing the bill. 162 21:20:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Mr PYNE —I appreciate the contribution made by the member for Corio. He and I both came into parliament in 1993 and both found ourselves voting together in 2002 on very similar bills. We will be voting together again on this bill. I was part of the debate in 2002 on the embryonic stem cell research bill and the ban on human cloning bill. I debated it very vigorously. I moved a number of amendments. I called a number of divisions. I think I spoke 14 times and failed to stop embryonic stem cell research but succeeded as part of the unanimous vote of this House to ban human cloning. At that time I threw quite a lot of effort at trying to stop embryonic stem cell research, but we failed to do so. In fact, the vote was a paltry 40-something votes against embryonic stem cell research. So on this occasion I have decided to speak only once to put my view, so as to not take the House’s time at great length, and not to move any amendments. There have been a lot of people talking about moving amendments to this bill. There was feeling that an amendment should be moved that would stop the use of aborted female foetuses for the extraction of stem cells for research purposes, which I think would be a useful change to the bill. But I feel that nothing can make this bill acceptable to me or to the House and, even if I voted in favour of such an amendment, I would still want to vote against this bill. I think this bill has many defects, not just of a technical nature but of a principled nature and a philosophical nature. We could argue about the science—many speakers have talked about the science—but this bill turns on one fundamental point, and that is when one believes human life is created and what one believes can become an embryo that will then become a human being. That is the fundamental point of this debate and to me nothing else matters. In 2002, we were told by the scientists and the advocates that that was as far as they needed to go—that they would get from what was available at the time all the eggs that they possibly could need to create their stem cell lines. This has been whittled away one step at a time. A moratorium that was put in place eventually disappeared. The sunset clauses that had been put in place for the return of those issues to a select committee for discussion and decision about whether new embryos could be used were all whittled away—until today, in 2006, we are debating what essentially is the overturning of a unanimous vote on the banning on human cloning in this place. This is being done under the guise of the beautifully named Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. Make no mistake: this is about continuing to move the boundaries of what we as human beings regard as acceptable in the research and science area. In 2002, we were told that they had reached the threshold; we were told that, if they went any further, they would be moving into the boundaries of what was immoral and unethical. As the member for Corio said, only four short years later we are debating those boundaries yet again and being asked to push them further out. I believe that, for some people—those who see no moral or ethical boundaries in science regarding this debate and what is or is not acceptable in the world today—the boundaries are limitless and eventually the next boundary will need to be pushed out. This bill potentially allows aborted human female foetuses to be used for the extraction of cells. I am a layman, but I would have thought that was a boundary we were not going to cross. But we have crossed it in this bill. I am not opposed to stem cell research per se. Like many other members who have spoken on this bill, I am in favour—in fact, enthusiastic—about adult stem cell research. It presents us with none of the moral or ethical dilemmas of embryonic stem cell research and certainly not those associated with therapeutic cloning. It is actually bringing about achievements as we speak. The University of Manchester has developed stem cells from adult bone marrow that are regenerating into spinal discs, potentially saving Great Britain $5 billion in health costs a year. However, I agree with the member for Melbourne that this debate is not about whether there is an alternative for us to fall back on. This bill is not a debate about whether we prefer one form of scientific research to another. This bill is about whether we believe that an embryo should be created for human life or whether there should be two classes of embryo: one created for death and one created for human life. So, even though I am in favour of adult stem cell research and against embryonic stem cell research, to me the debate is not about that. It is not about alternatives, as the member for Melbourne correctly pointed out—although I disagree with his end conclusion, because he is supporting this bill. This debate is about whether somatic cell nucleic transfer is not possibly a human life. That is what the debate turns on and that is what most people are arguing about. I reject the notion that somatic cell nucleic transfer is not capable of human life. I reject the notion that, just because we call something by a different name, it is not the same, as we understand it. I understand that this method of science creates an embryo. It has the potential for human life. It should not be allowed to be experimented upon and it should not be treated differently from other embryos. For the first time in our history, we are allowing scientists to create two types of human beings: one for destruction and death and the other earmarked for life. To me, respect for human life is the central component of a civilised society. It is the difference between civilisation and lack of civilisation. In 2002, I said that we were on the slippery slope. I do not believe that we are on the slippery slope any more; if we pass this bill, which I fear we will, we will be at the bottom of the abyss when in this House and as a society we talk about our respect for human life. The slippery slope will have been a paradise when compared with the abyss that we will allow ourselves to slide into by supporting therapeutic cloning or embryonic stem cell research as outlined in this bill. I respect the fact that many of my colleagues do not agree with me and many of my constituents do not agree with me. However, my constituency elected me to make decisions based on what I thought was the best judgement, and for 14 years I have tried to bring that judgement to this House. All of my colleagues are making the same judgement. I disagree with those who will vote for this bill. I disagreed with those in the Senate who voted for it. I think it is too easy and too convenient to make the decision to vote yes to this bill; I think it is harder to make the decision to vote no to the bill. But I will be voting no to the bill. I humbly disagree with my colleagues who are voting yes to it. I hope that as many of my colleagues as possible will vote to support human life and not to create two different classes of embryos in this society—which would hardly be the slippery slope but would now be the abyss. 164 21:28:00 Kerr, Duncan, MP RH4 Denison ALP 0 0 Mr KERR —The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the member for Sturt, has used language that is extremely emotional, which reflects the fact that this debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 is coloured by strong feelings. However, this parliament is the repository of the judgement of the Australian public. In a debate where people of goodwill and genuine conscience differ, it is I think unfortunate that we hear language such as ‘moral abyss’. Such language suggests that those who take views such as the ones I advocate and which are reflected perhaps by a majority of this House—or perhaps not; the vote will tell—are in some way morally less worthy or, indeed, unworthy or despicable because of the choices they make in what they believe to be the best interests of the Australian public and their constituencies. I do not come into this debate with a religious background, and I do not denigrate those who do. Many of my closest friends have strong religious beliefs, as do probably a majority of constituents. However, as I do not, I cannot be moved by or affected by an argument that commences with a premise that a particular religious tenet prohibits this particular conduct. In saying that, I accept that I ought to give proper respect and to not cheaply denigrate any views held by a large number of my fellow Australians, but I do not believe I can close my judgement in respect of particular belief systems that are not shared universally by the community. In this instance, irrespective of the fact that a number of groups which assert that they speak on behalf of church organisations have opposed the proposal put forward in this House by my friend and parliamentary colleague Dr Mal Washer—who comes from a different party but has come forward with a bill which he in his good conscience has seen fit to place before the House even though those church organisations have asserted that it defies religious tenets to support it—I recognise that a vast majority of Australians actually support the proposal. It is not possible to be confident about the scientific measurement of that opinion, but it would be in the order of 80 per cent of the Australian public supporting the Lockhart recommendations. Another community which has had a very strong and polarised debate has responded recently to similar discussions regarding stem cell research. On behalf of the Australian parliament, the Hon. Bruce Baird and I have recently been to the United States. We were there for a large part of the run-up to the mid-term elections. In that election, it was overwhelmingly the case that public opinion supported those candidates who identified themselves in favour of permitting stem cell research rather than prohibiting it. That might seem a bit of a turn-up for the books; nonetheless, that was the case in that community. But, in the end, neither religion nor popularity ought to determine the outcome of the vote in this House. As I said at the outset, I do not come to this debate holding religious views so I cannot allow that to determine my view, but I have a moral conscience irrespective of that fact. Secondly, I should not allow the fact that a majority of Australians support stem cell research to influence me if I believe it to be repugnant to the moral nature of our community. So neither the fact that it is popular nor what is asserted to be its position with respect to religious belief can condition ultimately the vote that I and many in this House will make. In the end, the question must be: what is the community benefit and what is the cost? In this instance, I believe the community benefit is potentially immense and the costs slight. The technology we are talking about is not reproductive cloning. Australia already allows research on embryonic stem cells for infertility purposes, and this is not in conflict with the basic approach that this parliament has already approved. This does open the opportunity to address some of the problems that the member for Cowan so eloquently spoke of—for example, giving people who have suffered paralysing diseases the opportunity to contemplate a better life if the medical technologies prove efficacious. Maintaining a ban will only see our researchers fall further behind, with a loss of economic benefit to this community and a loss of scientific knowledge—where we ought to be in the forefront, we will become in the rear. There are about half a million Australians who suffer debilitating diseases and conditions which may be the subject of advancements of medicine in this area. Every day one person dies from motor neurone disease and one person suffers a spinal cord injury. There are 140,000 children who have type 1 diabetes, and more than 100,000 Australians have Parkinson’s disease. In respect of each and every one of those conditions, stem cell research, whilst offering no guarantees, seems the most promising way forward to give hope for remedying those conditions. We have in the past debated the use of stem cell technologies. I sat on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs which presented its report to this parliament before the previous legislation was passed. I believe that passage of the legislation proposed by my friend Dr Mal Washer in this House will reflect only credit on a mature debate. I say that without denigrating those who have alternative views. I respect those views. I have heard from many constituents on both sides of this debate, and I certainly do not wish to suggest in any way that I have not been moved by their contributions. Some of the most powerful advocacy that I have received in the parliament has come from my constituents in the course of preparation for this and previous debates on these technologies. Nonetheless, in the end we are alone in this House, making a judgement as we best see fit. In this instance, I propose to vote for the bill and to not support any amendments. 166 21:36:00 Causley, Ian, MP 4K6 Page NATS 1 0 Mr CAUSLEY —The member for Denison mentioned that the member for Sturt might become emotional about this particular subject, and I dare say that could be the case. The very basis of the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 is a dubious premise. When you go out to the electorate and say, ‘There is an opportunity to cure motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease or even paraplegia or quadriplegia,’ the majority of Australians are going to say, ‘If you can do that, we would support that.’ But when you dig deeper and ask the scientists, ‘Can you give any guarantees that this is going to be the case?’ they say, ‘No, but the research may help in some way.’ So I think that the bill itself is based on emotion. It is putting a proposition to the Australian people, saying, ‘If you support this then we have the opportunity of curing all these diseases that are of great concern to the community at the present time.’ As I say, there is no guarantee that any of this research is going to give that result. I think that we have to look at that very clearly right from the start. I do not come to this debate from a particularly religious background, but I am a Christian and I value quality of life and I value life. I come to this debate saying to myself, ‘If we are going to create an embryo’—and that is exactly what we are going to do—‘then that to my way of thinking can develop into life.’ This is not an embryo as usual. As we know, the nucleus is going to be destroyed and a cell is going to be implanted. We are going to create a clone; we are going to create a twin. If I have some research done, a twin of me is going to be created for 14 days in the name of research. I ask myself: ‘Just how far are we going to go with research in this country? Is this the gradualism that we are looking at at the present time that takes us further down this track?’ At my age I start to wonder about that. I think I said this in the previous debate. I remember studying a book I think in my intermediate certificate by Aldous Huxley, Brave New World. That was considered science fiction in those days, but Aldous Huxley was talking in the 1930s about what we are talking about today. He was talking about test tube babies, about male and female being redundant and about us creating superbeings in test tubes. That was science fiction in the 1930s, but now we are talking about doing those types of things in the name of research. I start to worry about where we are going. I may be old-fashioned, but we have already gone a long way down this track. I accept that. In vitro fertilisation, for instance, is creating and implanting embryos, and not very successfully in a lot of cases. We are going down that area of interfering in the natural way of things by creating and implanting embryos. We have even gone down the track of surrogate mothers, and we are seeing all sorts of legal complications coming into play. We implant an embryo in another female to carry the progeny of two other people, and I start to wonder about that. All these things are coming into play, and where are we going in this debate? In many ways we are being desensitised, because we are saying, ‘This is in the name of research and this is in the name of protracting or extending the life of a human being, therefore we should go down this track.’ Let us get one thing straight: I am not a Luddite. I think that gene technology has a lot to offer—there is no doubt about that—but how far do we go with gene technology? How far do we go without creating a Frankenstein? These are the things that we are playing at at the present time, and I am not convinced that adult stem cell research will not give us the same result. In fact, it may be even better, and the scientists are saying: ‘Adult stem cell research can give us results. We’re not sure, but we think that embryonic stem cell research might give us better results.’ I find it difficult to accept this bill. I find it difficult to say that we are going to create an embryo and in 14 days kill the embryo and use the cells for research. I do not think I can go down that track. I think the bill is even further flawed, because the bill is saying that we are going to ask females to donate eggs. I am not convinced that we are going to get the number of eggs required from females wanting to donate to this research. We have had a lot of this in the past, you might recall, especially with artificial insemination. Male university students were paid for their sperm, and we now see the results of that. It may be only a few but we see the results of that, where children who were created by this AI research are now starting to come forward and say, ‘I want to know my natural parent.’ We create all sorts of problems when we start playing around in this particular area. I am not convinced that we are going to get enough eggs donated by females for this particular research. Are we then going to go down the further step of saying, ‘Females can be paid for their eggs’? Are we going to go down that track? I think that is just taking that extra step, and how often do we take that extra step? How often are we desensitised? It is not a matter of morals; I think it is a matter of asking, ‘As human beings, are we prepared to take that particular step?’ Those are the issues that are in my mind and are worrying me in making a decision on this. A few years ago we had the great announcement of Dolly the sheep. Here we had a sheep that had been cloned. It had been created from its mother from stem cell research, and all of a sudden we had this brand new technology that was going to allow us to recreate a particular individual. I do not hear scientists talking about that today, because, as far as I know, scientists have walked away from that. That particular cloning was not a success. In fact, from memory, Dolly the sheep aged as fast as its parent, so that particular cloning was not a success. Are we going to go down this track again not knowing exactly what the results are going to be, all on the premise that this is going to deliver to us wonder cures for these particular diseases? If anyone should support that, it should be me. I had a father who died from Parkinson’s disease, I have an uncle who is terminally ill with Parkinson’s disease, I had an uncle who died from Alzheimer’s disease and I have had three friends who have had motor neurone disease. I understand how desperate the families of those people are to get a cure for those particular diseases. But there is no guarantee in this bill that, if we agree to this, we are going to be delivered a miracle cure for any of these diseases. As I said, I believe the bill is based on a false premise; it is based on the fact that the creators of this particular bill wanted to play on the emotions of people to get their way. Quite frankly, I think we are heading down the track of research for research’s sake, and I cannot support this bill. 168 21:46:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 0 0 Mr GIBBONS —I rise to participate in this important debate on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 to amend the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 and the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002. I will be speaking in support of the bill. I realise that will probably disappoint a lot of people in my electorate who have communicated their views to me. I certainly understand that. I thank them for passing on their views to my office but I am elected in this House to represent the region of central Victoria and it is my judgement to make on those particular bills, especially those involving a conscience vote. I make no apologies; I thank the people for passing those views on to me. I spoke in support of both pieces of legislation when they were debated in this place in 2002. Both acts required that they be reviewed by an independent committee within three years, and it is as a result of that review process and the recommendations of the review committee that the amendments proposed by this bill have been developed. Given that the matters before us for consideration are complex as well as controversial, I think it is worth noting the composition of the legislative committee known as the Lockhart committee. The committee comprised the chair, the late Justice John Lockhart AO QC, a former justice of the Federal Court of Australia; Associate Professor Ian Kerridge, a clinical ethicist; Professor Barry Marshall, a specialist gastroenterologist and community advocate; Associate Professor Pamela McCombe, a clinical neurologist; Professor Peter Schofield, a neuroscientist; and Professor Loane Skene, a lawyer and ethicist. The committee was appointed by this government with agreement from each of the states and territories. It was clearly composed of a group of eminent and highly qualified individuals whose recommendations should not be casually dismissed. It is also evident from the Lockhart committee’s report that it engaged in an extensive public consultation process as well as reviewing the latest literature regarding the scientific and technological advances in human embryo research and related matters. One of the key objectives of the 2002 legislation was to ensure national regulation and oversight of assisted reproductive technology, ART, research and training. The Lockhart review found that an unintended consequence of the 2002 legislation has been that a number of areas of ART research have been impeded or stopped altogether. The legislation prevents any experimental fertilisation, egg activation or developmental embryo research. Unclear definitions within the legislation also create impediments that were not envisaged or intended. The Lockhart review also found that while there was a range of strongly held views about embryonic research, including total opposition, there was agreement that the current system of legislation is valuable. The committee therefore recommended that national legislation prohibiting human reproductive cloning continue, along with strict control, monitoring and licensing of human embryo research. In line with the recommendations of the Lockhart review, the bill before us proposes to: enable certain types of research involving embryos that are approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council’s licensing committee, and only in accordance with strict legislative criteria; clarify the definition of ‘human embryo’ in line with the definition developed by the NHMRC; repeal and replace sections of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002 to provide clarity and greater understanding; clearly define and describe the practices that are completely prohibited by the legislation, such as human cloning; and provide descriptions of the practices that are prohibited unless authorised by the NHMRC. As we have heard in this place and the other place during debate on the bill before us, the subject of human embryo research evokes a range of strongly held, emotive and diametrically opposed views. These views reflect the different ideological, philosophical, ethical and religious beliefs held by our colleagues and are reflective of the communities and constituencies we represent. I appreciate and understand the wide range of views that have been expressed in relation to this bill and, more importantly, I respect the right to express them. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to appreciate and respect the right that I believe all Australians should enjoy: the right to be able to hold and express a view that is different to our own without being subject to personal attack or ridicule. It is worth noting that Professor Ian Frazer, Australian of the Year, who has urged us to support this bill, has made an interesting observation about the current debate. Professor Frazer has suggested that during the 1970s the debate about genetic engineering, which was a precursor to his work in developing the cervical cancer vaccine, was complex, not easily understood and open to misrepresentation. He has made the point that we are in a similar position today, with a number of individuals and various interest groups attempting to discredit the science behind embryonic stem cell research. There is currently a huge research effort occurring around the world involving some of the world’s best and brightest doctors and scientists working tirelessly because they, their governments, world renowned research institutes and universities believe that stem cell and embryonic stem cell research offers the potential for some extraordinary medical advances, with the possibility of making available genetically matched new body tissue and cells that could potentially cure a range of debilitating conditions. I note that a number of opponents of this bill have, during debate both here and in the other place, accused proponents of the bill and its supporters of peddling false hope and of manipulation. Scientists are, I believe, realistic in their assessment of the potential lead times required for the development of the potential therapies and treatments and know that there are no guarantees in relation to the outcome of the research. The Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research Australia has said: While no-one can claim with certainty what benefits may eventually result from allowing therapeutic cloning in Australia, it is the overwhelming opinion of the scientific and medical community that this research has tremendous potential to better human life. I would like to read from a letter from a young girl from my electorate who was in Canberra recently with the Kids with Diabetes group. I held a meeting in my office with several of them. They came from all over Australia, as you will remember, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think this letter sums up my position on this bill: Dear Mr Gibbons I know there is a lot of exciting scientific breakthroughs in laboratories but our future is still very worrying, and I am scared of the potential complications of Type 1 diabetes. Not enough is being done to make the best of these breakthroughs useful to me soon. Please promise to remember me when you are asked to support a JDRF initiated proposal to form a large pharmaceutical vaccine development fund. The success of this fund is my greatest hope for a cure for Type 1 diabetes and for children with other diseases like asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis as well as some cancers. I really need your help please. Love from Kahlia Osborne I think that sums up pretty well why I do not believe, even though I am an elected member of this parliament, that I have the right to use my vote to stop or block potential betterment by way of treatment—if not a cure—for children or, indeed, for other people from all over the country with ailments, illnesses and disabilities when there is a chance that this legislation will enable it. I have given significant consideration to this bill, and I believe there are stronger and more compelling arguments for supporting it than for opposing it. Therefore, I will exercise my vote accordingly. In conclusion, I ask my colleagues who would rather focus on fear than on hope to consider the wisdom of Morris Cohen, who said: Science is a flickering light in our darkness, it is but the only one we have, and woe to him who would put it out. 170 21:55:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 1 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I rise to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. I would like to begin by thanking my constituents and, indeed, those right across the country for contacting me, be it through a telephone call to my office, through an email or through visiting me personally to have a chat about this important issue. I have welcomed the advice I have received from many people. I must confess, though, to some surprise and disappointment that we are debating the issue of therapeutic cloning so soon after it was so roundly rejected as a scientific procedure in this very parliament in 2002. Senator Patterson’s bill puts into legislation the recommendations of Justice Lockhart’s review and radically redefines the existing landscape to permit therapeutic cloning, simultaneously going well beyond the safeguards and restrictions currently governing stem cell therapies and cloning. As one of eight parliamentarians in Australia who wrote a submission to the Lockhart review, I have taken a very keen interest in this matter. The first point of entry into the current debate is to come to terms with the practice of so-called ‘therapeutic cloning’. It is a technique that produces cloned embryos with the sole intention of using them for research and destroying them. Despite its enticing and desirable sounding title, the practice of therapeutic cloning is anything but therapeutic for the cloned human in question. Only four years ago, the sponsor of this bill said that the vote in 2002:  … in no way heralds an increasingly liberal attitude to research involving human embryos. How things change. When I looked back at the speech I gave in this place on the 2002 legislation, I saw that I had asked a few questions, namely: Where will this debate take us once this line has been crossed? What will scientists demand once they have exhausted the current supply of unwanted IVF embryos? Will those lobbyists in favour of embryonic stem cell research come back to parliament in a year’s time arguing that millions of dollars have been invested in such research and that they need more embryos harvested? With this in mind, I shudder to think what debates we will face in 2009, 2010 and beyond when perhaps even more unbending demands come from the scientific community. As one of the younger members of this parliament, I will probably live to see the day of the inevitable consequences of the passing of this bill. Down the track will we be horrified to see those wealthy enough to do so pay to clone themselves and harvest the spare parts and skin? Some will immediately jump up in rage and call me an alarmist, as they did in 2002 when I said at that time that we had commenced the path to cloning. Should this bill be passed, we will have entered the brave new world of the new utilitarianism—a moral and ethical minefield and a dark step into the unknown with potentially disastrous outcomes. Therapeutic cloning is a step in the wrong direction—a depraved practice reflecting nothing more than the turpitudes of modern scientific egos in their race to the bottom of the ethics ladder. The proponents of therapeutic cloning have such little faith in their craft that they now enter into a debate on semantics. For instance, the public hearings of the Lockhart review committee in Melbourne heard from witnesses who suggested that the public feared the term ‘cloning’ per se, so it was better to couch the notion of human cloning in more sympathetic language. That is why we have such terms as ‘therapeutic cloning’ and ‘somatic cell nuclear transfer’. These terms are misleading and highly deceptive, clearly designed to confuse and lull the public into a full-blown affirmation of this unethical practice. The journal Nature raised this issue as well when its editorial team commented on the 2005 meeting of the International Society for Stem Cell Research in San Francisco. It said: The scientists ...fear that the word ‘embryo’ is a lightning rod that attracts negative scrutiny. But the work is far from yielding any therapies, and scientists realised that the word ‘cloning’ was generating public concern. So they decided to adopt a more technical term less likely to stir up strong emotion. We need to rid this debate of this type of confusion. Since the passing of the 2002 legislation, those who promised so much have in fact delivered nothing. And since we stepped over the line with the 2002 legislation there has been no successful model of treatment success from embryonic stem cell research in animal models or any current clinical trials or treatments which offer any of the inflated hope that is peddled somewhat vaingloriously by the proponents of therapeutic cloning. In fact, after four years of having access to excess human embryos for research—and with significant taxpayer funded assistance—those clinging to the hope that embryonic stem cell research would be the new panacea for all sorts of complex ailments are entitled to exclaim at the scientists who promised so much: ‘We was robbed!’ What has changed so markedly since 2002 that would justify going down this path? Why are we so swiftly ditching the spirit of the unanimous opposition to cloning that we put in place in 2002? What will the vote in this chamber mean for women, for the biotech industry and for the ambitious scientists who promise so much but in reality can deliver so little? Some members of the House and the Senate have spoken of their great hope for this type of research and accused those opposing it of playing on fear. Let us not get carried away. The scientists and we politicians need to rein in our inflated expectations that these therapies will be the cure for all human suffering. Such an approach is intellectually and scientifically dishonest. Such an approach is holding out false hope to the vulnerable and the weak. Such an approach is peddling an unfortunate myth-making that miracle cures are just a few cloning procedures away—whilst at the same time ensuring the scientific community and the big biotech companies the self-satisfaction and complacency of a dramatically lessened scrutiny. Lord Winston, the eminent British stem cell expert, succinctly wrote about the dangers of relying on the myth of miracle cures recently when he said: One of the problems is that in order to persuade the public that we must do this work, we often go rather too far in promising what we might achieve. This is a real issue for the scientists. I am not entirely convinced that embryonic stem cells will, in my lifetime, and possibly anybody’s lifetime for that matter, be holding quite the promise that we desperately hope they will. This bill raises a whole set of concerning scenarios—for instance, why are there not more concerns being raised about the inefficiencies of therapeutic cloning? What about the problems associated with abnormal genetic programming? Why should we ignore the moral and ethical difficulty of the creation of a new embryo as part of the process? What about the potential minefield of problems based on the fact that to clone embryos requires a significant number of human eggs—and where are they going to come from? Will women be forced to harvest eggs in aid of ambitious biotech companies? Will we see a trade in eggs from females in the years to come? How are we going to regulate this secretive and lucrative research to ensure it is carried out within the alleged safeguards of the legislation? Is it ethical to harvest eggs from destroyed female embryos? What further demands will we as legislators be asked to bow to in four years time? These are questions that go unanswered in this legislation. One of the terms of reference of the Lockhart review was the reflection of community standards in any future enabling legislation. The prominent Jesuit Frank Brennan—not someone I would normally quote in this place—basically got it right when he said: The science has not changed, the moral arguments have not changed, community standards have not changed. It should take more than a handful of scientists seeking out more value-free research environments for our politicians to change their conscience vote. For my part, I will not support legislation that essentially places some lives in a different category to others; where one class of human life is more important than another; where human life is downgraded to an interchangeable commodity placed in the hands of ambitious scientists; where the powerful embryo experimentation and the cashed-up biotech lobby groups can operate free from the constraints that the rest of society operate under; and where we fall further down the slippery slope through allowing the wanton destruction of human embryos in the name of scientific extremism. I support and will continue to support scientific research in its objective of alleviating human misery. That is why I support research using adult and cord stem cells, which is the type of cell research that actually has the runs on the board and has provided many positive outcomes, unlike the track record of experimentation with the cells from embryos, which is fraught with difficulty and has not produced any results that would give impetus to further liberalisation of the current restrictions. Even if such results existed, the end in itself should not justify—in the concise words of the member for Gwydir—this ‘further decisive slide down the slippery slope into a scientific barbarism that will treat some human beings as raw material to be cannibalised at will for the benefit of other human beings’. Others in this debate have spoken of serious reservations about the implications of passing this bill and of concerns about where it could lead, yet they are still voting for the bill—something I do not understand, but it is a conscience vote and such is their choice. I for one do not believe that we can airbrush out of existence the immense moral and ethical concerns that arise through the deliberate creation of life only to be harvested for the so-called benefit of others. That is why I will be voting against this bill. 173 22:06:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 0 0 Mr RIPOLL —Following the member for Indi, I can say that it is a pretty rare occurrence in this place that I would ever agree with her, but in this case I do and I commend her words—although I may not have put them in the same sentiment or manner. Nonetheless, I do agree with her final view. In fact, I want to take this opportunity to thank all members of the House who have contributed a view in this debate. Nearly all the members of this House have contributed a view and placed on the record how they will be voting in this debate. It is a very important debate, and I think we should be thankful that all members have taken the time to actually do that rather than just come in and vote. I too rise to speak on the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006. This bill has created a lot of interest from many people in the community and parliament alike. It deals with a subject matter that in one way or another affects us all very profoundly. From reading the bill and other research material, I and many other people in this place are more acutely aware of the subject matter and have a better understanding of the different scientific theories and the predictions of hope that in the future we can alleviate the pain and suffering of many who have afflictions such as CF, diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease. We have heard much in the debate about the pain and suffering of many people—and I sympathise very much with them and with their families for the pain and suffering they go through—and the hope that is being held out that new discoveries will be made soon that can alleviate this pain. I think we all agree that a lot of work ought to be done in that direction. We all need new cures to be found that give people hope that in the future no-one needs to suffer in these ways. Although it has been acknowledged by many that that may be many years away, I believe that we are doing all we can today and that we do have adequate legislation to allow that to occur. At the same time, I am also conscious that research must have its limitations and boundaries and that we cannot allow research for research’s sake in areas of questionable ethics or morality. We must move cautiously and we must move for the right reasons. We must give hope and we must do all we can, but we must not give false hope. We must not give people the impression that by allowing this bill to pass the House miracle cures for diseases will be found overnight or afflictions that affect many people in the community will be resolved quickly. That is often not the case. In fact, when you talk to scientists and the medical fraternity you find that the research that is being done and the potential research that could be done offers hope, but in the very distant future. While I have done quite a bit of reading on this matter, I do not profess to fully understand all the medical and technical complexities that are before us. But I do understand what this bill contains, what it does and what it is about. It is not necessary for me or any other member of this parliament to be an expert in this area to be able to make an informed and correct decision based on our own ethics, morals and beliefs on those things that we believe are in the best interests of our communities. So I do support extensive research and continued work on stem cells and I also believe that this will deliver cures in the future. I do not set a time frame on that. I believe that all that can be done medically should be done and that every step should be taken to save life and to prevent death. But I also understand that we are a long way away from any of those cures, and these debates will change as the science changes and the discovery of certain paths takes research into new fields and new areas. The reality is that today we have barely scratched the surface of stem cell knowledge, and that is why we should continue the work that is being done today. But we should advance with caution. The world is not a perfect place, and decisions that we make must be made in accordance with our beliefs and our consciences, and with the view that we should not destroy a life to save another. This bill has many implications, and I know that members of this House have taken this bill very seriously, I know they have researched the subject matter extensively; they have listened to the views of their constituents and sought opinions from professionals in the field, as I have done. I have done this because I believe it is important that I gain as wide a knowledge as possible to make an informed decision based not only on my conscience but also on the facts. I must say also that having a conscience vote is a special opportunity in this place, and one that all members of parliament should embrace when we are given that chance. We should all exercise that privilege according to our views and our own responsibilities, representing our constituents. There is no question that there are many ethical, moral and scientific issues in relation to therapeutic cloning, cloning human embryos, the use of them and the manner in which they are used. There are many points and many questions. Some of them may be resolved in the future as new discoveries are made, which would mean that we do not have to cross those ethical boundaries and we do not have to go down particular paths. I honestly believe that since the first debate in 2002—in which I voted, like every other member of this parliament, against the human cloning aspect of embryonic stem cell research—there has been no compelling evidence or further information that would change my view in favour of the amended bill before us today. The information, though, that has most been a source of interest has come from the tabling of the Lockhart report in late 2005 and, of course, from other research which outlines various alternative pathways for ethical stem cell research. I believe this may remove the need for therapeutic cloning research, as similar results will be delivered through alternative pathways. New discoveries are being made today. Research is currently being undertaken that is driving us down a particular path which may very soon provide us with a way out and a way to get the sorts of outcomes and results that scientists say we need to explore, but without having to cross the ethical boundaries which are a difficulty for so many people in the community and in the parliament. So, for me, the most promising course of action is continued research, continued funding from government and a continued involvement by the Australian scientific community in these areas, but within the boundaries currently set by legislation in this country. For me, this bill is a question about not crossing that ethical boundary, that fragile ethical line between research and destruction of life which must not be crossed, no matter the so-called promises that are made. That continued pushing outwards of the line from researchers who will never be satisfied, and for whom anything less than unlimited and unchecked research is the new boundary, is an issue. I do not agree with those views. I do not agree that we should continually review and push out the lines of research. I think it is satisfactory that we set good, solid, tight legislative frameworks and boundaries which give guidance to researchers and set laws by which people can then carry out their research. But, as new discoveries are made, that is not a green light or an acceptance that we should then, in future years, continue to push that ethical boundary out further and further. The most promising way forward is sometimes not the clearest. It is sometimes not even the easiest path. It is sometimes the path that is forced upon others through the setting of strict boundaries. It is sometimes those stricter guidelines and paths that deliver the innovation, that create the new discoveries that otherwise would not have been found if scientists had been given the most open, broadest and widest possible opportunities. Sometimes it is through legislative frameworks, the setting of strict boundaries, that science will actually dig deeper and dig further and perhaps find the answers to those questions that we are asking. There are a number of alternatives which provide a more ethical plan of action than the potential of cloning human embryonic stem cells. I would like to note some of the alternatives for the House, such as: adult stem cells, which are unspecialised cells that can self-renew, repair tissue in their locality and divide to generate more-specialised mature cells; mesenchymal stem cells, which are a type of adult stem cells that can produce cartilage, bone, tendon, fat, teeth, muscle and nerve cells and which may be derived from bone marrow; and human neural stem cells, which can be isolated from brain tissue. While not readily accessible, they have the advantage of proliferating readily in vitro as well as differentiating into ecto-, endo- and mesenchymal germ layers. There is a whole world of potential in adult stem cell research which scientists and research tell me is delivering many great results. These are just some of the alternatives that I believe we should be looking at more closely and in more detail before we go down other paths, before we spread too thinly the research and before we spread too thinly the available funding for research being undertaken. In fact, these are alternatives that fall within current legislative boundaries and are not ethically questionable. It also needs to be noted that, while there is an understanding in the community of the issues we are discussing, there is much confusion around the terms and definitions and there is no real agreement in the community on what they mean, regardless of what some polls say. I want to use as support for my argument the view from the Eureka Strategic Research study, Public awareness research 2005: stem cells. The study said: There is a very low level of understanding of the term ‘therapeutic cloning’ or ‘nuclear transfer’, which makes it difficult to explore attitudes without first taking an audience through an explanation of the science. Also, in the absence of understanding, people tend to make an ‘emotive’ judgement and for therapeutic cloning, the term ‘cloning’ is far more negatively weighted than the term ‘therapeutic’ is positively weighted. I think what that statement in the report very simply outlines is that there is not a clear understanding in the community of what it is that we are doing and where that line is. But I think the community do understand the line itself; they do understand the ethical boundaries; they do have a deeper understanding of these issues, even if they do not perhaps understand the terms. Therefore it is our responsibility in this place to make sure that we tread very carefully in these areas. Having legislation that allows for massive changes in areas of questionable ethics is not something that we should do lightly, and it is not something we should do without real understanding and broad acceptance by the community. I do not believe we have the broad acceptance by the community in this respect as yet, but we may do in years to come, as we gain further knowledge and make clearer the ethical lines that are currently set. Of course, ethics is not the only point that should be raised in this debate. As with most things, there is a substantial element of cost. In a perfect world with unlimited funding there are many things we could do better and do properly. Unfortunately, we have a very limited pool of funds devoted to this type of research, which comes not only from government and the taxpayer but from a lot of different agencies within the community—the states, the private sector and others. We need to ensure that those limited funds follow the most efficient path and deliver the best results and outcomes. I do not believe that this legislation would do that. If in this place we do not all have the same view or vote a certain way on this bill—and for different reasons—then we are no different from those who are actually the experts. I have had opportunity to speak with experts and scientists and they, like us, hold different views, for a variety of reasons. They do not all agree about the different directions and paths we should take. They do not agree about the amount of funding that should be given to different research areas. The do agree, of course, in the areas where they research. That is fine, but it is not their role to decide the legislative frameworks. That is our role. It is our job. I believe we should strive to achieve all we possibly can under the current—and I think very successful—legislation that we have and we should follow the current successful research paths, continue to develop further in those areas and continue to look for all the cures and all the answers that we seek. To me, that does not mean allowing unfettered, unchecked research. A lot has been said on this debate. I will conclude with a few more thoughts. I do not believe that enough has changed in terms of the ethical boundaries, the arguments, the potential outcomes, the science or much else over the four years since 2002. Ultimately, I found myself not convinced by the prospects of what this bill will allow and the ethics contained within its contents. I believe, though, that over the next decade and further the need for this legislation will become obsolete as the moral and ethical issues that cloud this debate will have been resolved through continued research and discovery—those lines that we cross with this bill will not be crossed in the future. I believe that time is not very far away. There will be other methods to extract the information that we need. In the end, I suppose I am a bit of a sceptic, a healthy sceptic, about the great promises made by experts that tell us all that all the mysteries of human frailty could be solved if only legislators—that is, us—would get out of their road, if only we would give them the open ethical chequebook to do whatever they feel is necessary. I do not agree with that view. I believe science should work within the moral and ethical boundaries of the day, and as those boundaries change with time so can science change with time. Perhaps this is what allows accepting today practices that were unacceptable in the past and rejecting some practices of the past that are clearly unacceptable today so that, as we discover more and open new doors of opportunities, we also make clearer the boundaries to the access which we allow ourselves. Perhaps that is the way that the human race keeps a check and balance on itself. This bill does not guarantee any cure or particular new discovery. In fact, this bill merely allows an open-ended research journey that may lead to a path that leads to a discovery which helps us to learn more. For me, that is just not enough to support this bill. I believe this bill will pass the House. I respect the decision of the House and the decision of each and every member, according to their own values and experiences. I do not take away from, criticise or in any other way judge any other member of this House for the decision they make. I respect that decision as I hope they will respect mine. Like other members, I will exercise my vote based on my conscience and on what I believe is in the best interests of my community. 177 22:22:00 Entsch, Warren, MP 7K6 Leichhardt LP 1 0 Mr ENTSCH —With the very limited amount of time I have left, I will start my contribution to the debate. I do not rise here tonight to give a scientific appraisal of stem cell research. I do not intend to give an exhaustive overview of the reams of technical information presented to me and my colleagues in the lead-up to this debate. I am certainly not an expert and I do not pretend to be. There are those eminently more qualified than I to provide such a critique. That is why in 2002 the government appointed the Lockhart committee to review the embryo research legislation. This committee of six leading ethicists, lawyers, scientists and doctors took written and oral evidence for six months from several hundred people. The review examined all aspects of legislation, in particular whether it was functional and meeting the research needs and public concerns. After its review, the Lockhart committee was satisfied that the existing legislation had achieved an appropriate balance between permitting medical research with spare embryos and embryonic stem cell lines while meeting community concerns by a strict ban on reproductive cloning. However, the anomaly identified by Lockhart and addressed in this Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction and the Regulation of Human Embryo Research Amendment Bill 2006 is the fact that the 2002 legislation allows for the creation of embryonic stem cell lines from fertilised human eggs but not when derived from an unfertilised human egg through therapeutic cloning. In other words, they are both human eggs which would never be implanted into a woman’s uterus for the purpose of reproduction, but one can be utilised and the other cannot. This bill will allow the use of unfertilised eggs as well as fertilised eggs for the creation of stem cell lines. To me the crux of this debate is about balance—balancing the need of our scientific research community in its quest to find better ways of understanding and treating debilitating disease and injury and the hope this gives to literally hundreds of thousands of victims and their families with the need to protect the sanctity of human life. Nowhere in this legislation is there a suggestion that we should be relaxing the total prohibition on reproductive cloning—nowhere at all. This parliament has ensured that this is not negotiable. The emotive arguments that I have heard that this legislation is leading us down the slippery slope towards the frightening prospect of creating half-man, half-animal beings should be left to the Hollywood scriptwriters. Just like the movie The Island of Dr Moreau, it is an outlandish sci-fi plot intended to scare us senseless but has no place in reality. Although I do not accept it was a possibility under the original legislation, I note any concern has now been put well and truly beyond doubt with the amendment passed in the Senate banning the use of animal eggs. The reality is Australia has one of the best if not the best and most ethically and tightly regulated research communities in the world. I for one cannot stand by and deny our best and brightest the opportunity to be leaders in the field of embryonic research. There is still much we do not know about stem cells. However, what we do know is that the potential of both embryonic and adult stem cells needs to be investigated further. We already know that human adult and embryonic stem cells, due to their ability to replace damaged cells in the body, could be used to treat a range of conditions, including heart failure, spinal injuries, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease or other diseases that involve cell damage or loss. It is true more work needs to be done, particularly in the field of embryonic stem cells. It will take years; I have no doubt about that. It may be a decade or more before treatments can be tested in clinical trials. I find it astonishing that opponents of such research use the lack of medical breakthroughs to date as one of the key justifications for not proceeding with this legislation. Instead of that being bandied about in this place as a reason not to proceed, I think the sooner we get started the better. If that means I stand condemned, as I have heard others condemned, for holding out false hope to the sufferers of debilitating diseases or severe injury, then so be it—I stand condemned. I will not stand in the way of medical research that could one day provide a way to generate new blood cells for leukaemia patients, regenerate nerve tissue damaged by spinal cord injury, replace brain cells destroyed in Parkinson’s disease or stroke, or produce insulin-producing islet cells that are destroyed in type 1 diabetes. If there is a prospect of any or all of these things being achieved, then surely we as a society need to promote and support all forms of scientifically and ethically reputable research available. As Professor Skene said in summarising her submission on legislative responses to the Lockhart review, we basically have two choices. We can say to our scientists, ‘We are going to stop you trying to find out anything at all,’ or: ‘We will regulate you. We will watch what you are doing with a transparent process—with licensing and reporting to parliament—and then we will see what happens.’ It seems to me that the doomsayers in the debate are the same as those who were vehemently opposed to the IVF treatment and the use of animal tissues in organ transplants. At the time of introduction, these techniques were relatively new and unknown. Today they are widely accepted and have become a standard feature in our medical landscape. Indeed, literally hundreds of thousands of Australians owe their lives to these groundbreaking advances in medical science. I could not imagine what it would be like to stand in the shoes of someone who suffers from motor neurone disease or quadriplegia, or what it would be like for strong, independent people who are struck down in the prime of their life by chronic disease or devastating injury to have to rely on others for the most basic of functions. As parliamentarians we have no right to rob these people and their families of hope. Debate (on motion by Ms Corcoran) adjourned. 179 Adjournment Mr PEARCE (Aston —Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) 22:30:00 —I move: That the House do now adjourn. 179 179 22:30:00 Corcoran, Ann, MP 009CW Isaacs ALP 0 0 Ms CORCORAN —I recently had the opportunity to host a young work experience student from a school in my electorate. Said Rahman Hashemi is a remarkable young man who came to Australia from Afghanistan in 2005. When Said arrived in Australia he had no English skills at all. After seven months of study at Noble Park English Language School, his command of the language is quite amazing. During his time in my office, Said wrote a brief summary of his life in Australia. I would like to read what he wrote, in his words. It starts off: My Story Hi, my name is Said Rahman and my family name is Hashemi. I am from Afghanistan. My province is Paktai Said Qaram. I was born in Afghanistan. I am eighteen years old. My date of birth is 10/10/1988. I read school in Afghanistan just for six years. I have a father and a mother and I have two sisters and three brothers. I came to Australia in 2005. The first time when I came to Australia I was really unhappy because everything was changed for me. I couldn’t speak English, the costume was different and the culture was different. Now I am very happy in Australia because I know on everything, but I have problem with English language; not too much—little little. Now I am studying at Noble Park English Language school. I am very happy in that school. I have good teachers and good friends at that school. Now I live with my parents—I love them and they love me. I love my brothers and sisters. Now I live in Dandenong South. My favourite subjects are English, computers, history and science. My favourite sports are volleyball, soccer and cricket. In my free time I watch T.V and sometimes I watch Indian movies. I speak Pushta at my home. I am very happy to come to this office and to do work experience here—I proved of this I will be very brave to finish my work here. Said is one of thousands of migrant children who have benefited enormously from their time at Noble Park English Language School. Noble Park English Language School provides an intensive English language program for recently arrived migrants and refugees. It also provides a strong welfare program. All the staff are strongly committed to providing the students and their families with a good start in their new country and assisting in the transition process. The school was first established in 1979 as a summer school for around 200 new arrivals residing at the Enterprise Hostel in Springvale. By 1980, with a growing number of new arrivals in the area, the school became established as a centre at the old Noble Park Primary School site in Buckley Street, Noble Park. The total number of students rose to between 300 and 400. With its further ongoing success, the centre officially became the Noble Park English Language School in 1989. By 1995, the need for more space and modern facilities saw the school move to its current site at Thomas Street. Presently, the school caters for around 250 to 300 primary and secondary students at a time. At any one time the school has students representing over 40 language groups. Classes are small, with approximately 13 students per class, and the ages of students range from five to 18. Typically a student will start school at Noble Park as soon as they arrive in Australia and will stay for a period of some months to a year. Once the student has mastered the language, they move on to a regular school or TAFE at an appropriate level for their age and interests. Noble Park English Language School is a friendly and exciting community. The school has a number of multicultural aides, who act as a wonderful link between the school and the home. I am very proud to have a longstanding relationship with this school. Without the education and support provided by this school, people like Said would have a much tougher start in our country. The staff at Noble Park are to be congratulated for the enormous effort they put into each and every one of their students. They are tireless in their work and in their dedication to their job, and that dedication shows in the positive attitude the students have and in their success. On a different note, I would like to wish my grandson Declan a happy birthday. Declan is Tim and Linda’s son and is Tom’s little brother. He will be four on Thursday. The family is gathering on Thursday to celebrate Declan’s birthday but, for the third year in a row, parliament is sitting on his birthday and I will not be part of that group. Nevertheless, I am sure Declan will have a very good day and we all wish him a happy birthday. 180 180 22:35:00 Fawcett, David, MP DYU Wakefield LP 1 0 Mr FAWCETT —I rise tonight to draw the attention of the House to an excellent organisation which benefits youth right around Australia. On Friday just past, I had the privilege of going to Clare in the north of the Wakefield electorate to attend the annual awards night for the 411 Army Cadet Unit. The cadets involved had a parade, followed by the presentation of awards. Afterwards I had a chance to talk with a number of them over supper about their experiences during their recent bivouac and what they got out of it. From a broader organisational perspective, cadets are a good thing. Defence have done a couple of studies, and they have confirmed that service cadets make a significant contribution to the Australian Defence Force, particularly with regard to recruitment and retention. The findings reveal that there are some 25,000 young Australians in 500 or so cadet units around the country. This represents about one per cent of their age group, but they are 10 times more likely to join the Defence Force than noncadets. In addition, ex-cadets make up some 25 per cent of the serving permanent and reserve workforce. The results are even more impressive when you consider they make up a large percentage of the senior ranks in the ADF, with over 25 per cent of brigadiers and above being ex-cadets. So it is a good career path. But the message that I think is most important to get out to the parents and the schools of Australia is that the cadet force gives our young people a sense of purpose. It breeds in them responsibility, it inculcates in them respect for self and others, it develops their leadership ability and it develops in them a commitment to voluntary service—all of which adds to the value they bring to Australian society. But this does not just happen by itself. I would like to mention and commend the parent committee of 411 Army Cadet Unit, particularly Susan Taylor, the president of that committee, who has worked tirelessly, as a number of her children have been involved in the cadet unit there, and Joan Smith, who is the secretary to the parent committee. Lieutenant Samantha Stephens and Lieutenant Trevor Edmonds give freely of their time to provide leadership to these young people to help them develop their characters through their involvement with the cadets. I am fortunate to have a number of cadet units in Wakefield. There is not only 411 Army Cadet Unit in Clare but also 49 Army Cadet Unit at Smithfield, with Lieutenant Nick Gerrie. I have visited and spoken to the cadets and encouraged them, based on my own career, to think about the career options they have within the Defence Force. There are also cadets in the various flying training flights and squadrons, such as 608 Squadron at Willaston, 618 Squadron at Andrews Farm, 613 Squadron at Edinburgh, the Navy cadets with Training Ship Stuart, as well as Air Youth of South Australia and the people involved with that. Significantly, though, the cadets also provide an opportunity for our elders—the people who have gone before us—to act as mentors and to encourage these young people. I particularly want to recognise, in the case of Clare, people like Bill Kearney from the RSL for the role that he plays in being involved with and encouraging the cadets. Similarly, at Gawler, Wayne Clarke, who is the President of the RSL there, encourages the air cadets who so often get involved with things like Anzac Day and Remembrance Day and providing the catafalque party. I also recognise the National Servicemen’s Association and their president, Harry Taylor, for the encouragement that they provide to a number of cadet units in the area not only through mentoring and being alongside them but also through fundraising so that these cadets have the finances they need. I am pleased to see a renewed emphasis from the Defence Force in providing material support to these young people. Any organisation that can help develop a sense of purpose, responsibility, respect for self and others, leadership ability and the commitment to voluntary service is something that I believe deserves all of our support. 181 181 22:39:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 0 Ms GRIERSON —I rise to pay tribute to the life of Jim Comerford, a man of extraordinary strength, passion and commitment to the principles of fairness and equity, and to honour the significance of his life’s work to the character of Australia and the working lives of Australian men and women. Our nation lost a legendary figure with his death on 3 November, aged 93. A miner, a union leader, a proud socialist and a distinguished author of several volumes of mining history, Jim Comerford has left a remarkable legacy. I was honoured to join his family, friends and comrades in celebrating Jim’s life at a memorial service last month. I again extend my deepest sympathy to Jim’s lifelong and much loved partner, Mabel; his daughter, Jean, and son-in-law, Tony; his grandchildren, Bruce and Helen; and his great grandchildren, Matthew and Callen. The esteem in which Jim was held was reflected in the tributes he received from former Labor prime ministers Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating and the former Labor leader Kim Beazley, who launched Jim’s book The Lockout in April this year. Jim Comerford was one of only three surviving Australians who were there at the lockout in 1929 when police opened fire on 4,000 miners at the Rothbury colliery in the Hunter Valley. One miner, Norman Brown, was shot dead. Another miner, Tom Flannery, collapsed and died when mounted police baton-charged the miners. Dozens more were severely wounded, carrying their scars and injuries for life. These men paid too high a price for daring to struggle for safe and fair work conditions. Jim was a 16-year-old pit boy when he witnessed these horrific events which shaped the rest of his life. Jim became an outstanding union leader and leader of the Retired Mineworkers Association. The Jim Comerford Miners Wall of Remembrance at Abermain is named in his honour. My grandfather, a miners’ federation man, was also part of the struggle at Rothbury, so I remain indebted to Jim Comerford for his insistence that the story of the lockout would never be forgotten. My stepfather feels honoured to have worked in the mines with him. For Jim Comerford, The Lockout is his generous gift to the nation. Importantly, Jim’s telling of this epic story is a timely reminder of the legitimate role and work of trade unions in Australia and the benefits of collective bargaining for Australian workers. Jim actually trained many of the union organisers in the labour movement who, with their colleagues, are today so steadfast in their opposition to this government’s so-called Work Choices legislation. Despite rhetoric about job creation and flexibility in the workplace, working families are already feeling the pressure of this extreme legislation. In June, I surveyed my electorate on what they thought of the government’s industrial relations changes. Four hundred and seventy-nine Novocastrians responded, with 84 per cent of people expressing concern about the impact of the changes. For 19 per cent, the biggest concern was being sacked unfairly, and 11.3 per cent selected being forced onto an AWA with less pay and fewer conditions. Losing penalty rates and overtime rated 10.6 per cent and young people being exploited rated 10½ per cent. Sixteen per cent of respondents indicated they were equally concerned about all aspects of the industrial relations changes. These figures reveal a new sense of insecurity and vulnerability among working people, and the comments made by my constituents reveal that they have thought hard about Work Choices, with many having already been personally affected. A constituent from Merewether Heights wrote about the unfair dismissal laws: I am not against employers sacking if the employee doesn’t work honestly [but] employers may take advantage of good workers unfairly. A Fletcher resident wrote about individual contracts: My workplace was bullied into signing part-time contracts. We lost a considerable amount of money per hour and gained nothing. On pay and conditions, a resident of Maryland said bluntly and regrettably: The moment WorkChoices came in I lost $60 a week. The following quote reflects a widespread disquiet: We are concerned that our children and grandchildren will be forced to work under an Americanised system where people have to work two or three jobs just to make ends meet. The people of Newcastle are not whingers or bludgers. They have a reputation for hard work, toughness and resilience in the face of adversity, but they know that the Howard government has gone too far with these laws and they are increasingly expressing their anger. Like Jim Comerford and my grandfather before me, I will always dare to struggle for a safe and fair workplace. Newcastle’s working men and women and future generations deserve no less. I will always dare to support the labour movement, for ordinary working Australians know that the difference between dignity and slavery is having a union that will defend your rights at work. I seek leave to table the Newcastle workplace report. Leave granted. 182 182 22:44:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 0 0 Ms LIVERMORE —Yesterday was the 25th anniversary of the International Day of People with a Disability. In establishing the day for people with a disability, the United Nations aims to promote awareness of disability issues and the talents and achievements of people with a disability. This is a significant day and one worth recognising in this chamber when one considers the number of people in each of our electorates who are living with a disability. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that one in five Australians, or 3.95 million people, have a disability and that over 2½ million Australians take on some sort of a caring role to assist people with disabilities. We all need to take the time to acknowledge and understand the needs of people with disability in our community—and, just as importantly, their hopes and aspirations. Tonight I raise an issue that has been brought to my attention by an organisation in my electorate that is doing great work for people with disability. Capricorn Citizen Advocacy is a community based organisation in Rockhampton that uses the principles of citizen advocacy to improve the lives of people with disability. Capricorn Citizen Advocacy works by finding and supporting caring, responsible citizens who make a long-term voluntary commitment to make a positive difference in the life of a person who may be lonely, face difficult challenges or be in at-risk situations. The team at Capricorn Citizen Advocacy recruit, orientate and match people with disability and voluntary citizen advocates to ensure that there is a good match between the interests and needs of the protege and the abilities, resources and commitment of the citizen advocate. Capricorn Citizen Advocacy is one of many organisations across Australia carrying out this essential role of providing advocates for people with disability. Like all services committed to the interests of people with disability, it is very concerned about the future of the government’s National Disability Advocacy Program. There are 71 disability advocacy programs in Australia funded under the NDAP and they have been in limbo all year as a result of government delays and ineptitude. The Minister for Family and Community Services kicked off the year with a review of the program and since then there have been non-stop discussion papers and consultations but no decisions. In early October, the shadow minister for ageing, disabilities and carers urged the minister to make a decision in relation to funding for disability advocacy services, as the lack of action was leading to the slow death of the program. Services around the country were reporting that the uncertainty surrounding the program was leading them to lose valuable and experienced staff and they were unable to sign leases for their premises and unable to take on new clients, even though the demand for services was there. The minister has now announced a funding offer to current services, but it appears that the offer is conditional on the services meeting additional and unspecified new service standards. Does the minister seriously expect organisations to expand their services while they receive the same amount of money? The coordinator of Capricorn Citizen Advocacy, Jenny Keerie, is deeply concerned that the government’s actions may lead to wholesale changes in the capacity for advocacy services to continue their great work—in particular for those who might otherwise fall through the cracks without an individual approach. I might note for the record that Capricorn Citizen Advocacy in my electorate is, in fact, state funded; it is not directly affected by the delays in achieving these new funding agreements. Nonetheless, it is very committed to the principles and the concept of advocacy and is taking on this fight on behalf of and in solidarity with the other advocacy services around the country that are affected by this uncertainty in the Commonwealth program. As we mark the International Day of People with a Disability, I believe it is time for the government to recognise the vital role of advocacy services in empowering people with disability and to end the uncertainty that has hung over the sector all year. Question agreed to. 184 22:49:00 House adjourned at 10.49 pm 2006-12-04 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins) took the chair at 4.00 pm. 185 Committees 185 185 Debate resumed. 185 16:00:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —This visit to New Zealand by the parliamentary delegation confirmed the great value of these inquiries. If there is one area where New Zealand and Australia have to take cognisance of each other’s policy, it is the area of migration. Obviously Australia, with a higher non-English-speaking-background settler population, tends to be a bit of a magnet for people who have settled in New Zealand. I congratulate the chairman, the member for Canning, and the delegation secretary, Dr Kate Sullivan, for the professional way in which this delegation was led. We were limited in numbers but, as I say, it was a very worthwhile visit—as were the discussions with the foreign affairs and transport and industrial relations committees. Mark Gosche, a former minister, who has close ties with this country on a family basis, was amongst the people at those discussions. Aspects of the delegation’s visit that I found interesting included the move in New Zealand to try to streamline and amalgamate a number of tribunals. They experience a reality—which is international—of people utilising the tribunal appeal process to prolong their stay in a country. New Zealand has a number of authorities and there are moves there to do something about the appeal process. Another aspect of interest was the refugee and migrant resettlement group—a voluntary organisation that seeks to train people helping migrants and, more particularly, refugees settle in New Zealand. In this country there has been a bit of a withdrawal of volunteers, particularly from church groups, over the last decade as they became frustrated with the red tape in the system, but in New Zealand there has been a massive effort to try to ensure that they retain and encourage people. In relation to the appeals process, one of the aspects that I think the delegation was surprised about was the separate issues of people being deported and the lack of rights of the department to get information with regard to the deportation of people. Page 18 of the report says: Officers do not have any powers to require information to assist them to locate a person here lawfully, but who may have obtained that status through fraud or misrepresentation. In order to investigate such cases, the officer must generally first locate the person and give them an opportunity to respond. Whilst there is something amenable in the way in which New Zealand does not seem to have a proliferation of long-term appeals, the other side of the coin is a real national problem when it comes to locating people who are illegally in the country, have no grounds for being there or have been through the appeals process and failed. Skilled migration was obviously a great matter of interest. New Zealand is moving from a pool system where people gain 100 points and then await their destiny to a new system whereby people with 140 points get automatic entry. I note that New Zealand requires a higher standard of English for skilled migration entry. There is an image internationally of New Zealand being a country that is slightly more liberal with regard to refugee settlement processes. We were very interested to find that New Zealand intends, under its UNHCR responsibilities, to curb the intake in order to look at those communities that it perceives as being better able to settle. The main example cited to us was the Burmese. So Australia is not the only country that perhaps at the edges seeks to maintain some government policy control on the entrant groups. Another matter of interest is the question of New Zealand’s relationship with the Pacific islands. It is interesting to note the population trends. In 1991, Pacific islanders accounted for five per cent of the population, and they are now up to 6.2 per cent; and Maoris represented 12.1 per cent and are now up to 14.1 per cent. There was genuine concern expressed to us that what has happened with Niue and some other islands in the Pacific is recurring with respect to Samoa. We all know that the New Zealand’s football team is full of Samoans—and western Samoans more particularly—but there is a genuine concern that the easy access to New Zealand might be leading to a situation of depopulation within Samoa. That is an issue being looked at. We found the ethnic peak councils in New Zealand extremely appreciative of government policy and interest in their affairs when we met them. As I said, we also had the opportunity to meet government, opposition and Green Party spokespeople to discuss immigration policy. I want to put on record again the value of these exchanges. As I said earlier, in immigration there is a crucial need to mirror policies as much as possible. It is not totally going that way, but we try to aim for that. Thank you very much for the opportunity to endorse this report. 186 16:05:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 1 0 Mr RANDALL —by leave—I am pleased today to speak on the tabling of the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to New Zealand. I was honoured to lead the delegation to New Zealand from the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, as part of the annual Australia-New Zealand Committee Exchange Program between the two parliaments. The delegation visited New Zealand from 27 to 31 August. I thank the member for Reid for his kind words, in his introduction, about the conduct of the delegation and the visit. This visit to New Zealand was timely, given that the committee was close to finalising its inquiry into overseas skills recognition, upgrading and licensing. The terms of reference for the inquiry required the committee to consider how Australia’s arrangements compare with those of other major immigration countries. New Zealand was one of the countries under examination. Australia and New Zealand both face skills shortages and, with the high degree of economic integration between the two economies and high rates of cross-Tasman migration, the committee welcomed the opportunity to examine the New Zealand skilled migration program and its overseas skills recognition processes. The New Zealand government announced changes to its skilled migration program in December 2005 and recently commenced a review of the New Zealand Immigration Act 1987. In February 2006 the New Zealand Minister for Immigration also announced a nationwide initiative aimed at providing improved settlement assistance to migrants and refugees. These were all issues of direct relevance to the work of the committee. The delegation met with New Zealand parliamentarians, government and non-government officials and peak ethnic groups. The delegation report provides some background on the program assembled for the visit and a brief comparison of migration arrangements in New Zealand and Australia. The report concludes by highlighting a number of areas of interest to the delegation over the course of the visit. I want to focus my comments today on five of these areas. Firstly, the delegation was interested to meet with New Zealand’s immigration department, Immigration New Zealand, and hear more about the current review of the New Zealand Immigration Act. As the delegation report notes, in May 2005 the New Zealand government launched a comprehensive review of its immigration program, including the Immigration Act. The review aims to ensure the effectiveness of labour migration, border security and migrant settlement. This is the first major review of the act since it was established. The proposed changes to the legislation include a simplified visa system for travel to, and stay in, New Zealand. New Zealand currently has a very different entry system for noncitizens from that of Australia. In New Zealand there is a two-document system, consisting of visas and permits, while in Australia entry is managed solely through the visa system. A visa provides the authority for a noncitizen to travel to New Zealand, while a permit provides the authority for a noncitizen to enter and remain in the country. The discussion paper on the Immigration Act review comments that this terminology has proven confusing, with many people being unaware of the distinction between visas and permits. It is therefore proposed to bring the various elements of the visa and permit system together in a single visa-only system, as exists in Australia. The committee will be interested in the outcomes of this review and the subsequent changes to the New Zealand immigration arrangements. Secondly, the delegation met with senior officers from New Zealand’s immigration appeals tribunals and heard more about the proposals as part of the Immigration Act review to amalgamate these tribunals. As the delegation report notes, there are currently four immigration appeals tribunals in New Zealand. The delegation heard that each of these tribunals has been established for a single purpose—meaning that individuals can therefore appeal to multiple authorities. The availability of these multiple avenues of appeal has led to delays in the final determination of these matters. The amalgamated tribunal will provide a single procedure for determining refugee and protection status and establish a single right of appeal, with all possible considerations being heard together. It is perceived that this will reduce delays in awaiting determinations and improve the overall fairness, transparency and efficiency of the appeals system. Thirdly, the delegation was interested to learn more about New Zealand’s overseas skills recognition framework. Like Australia, New Zealand is facing a skills shortage in key employment sectors. Assessing the skills of those who wish to migrate is a critical element of the migration system. Both Australia and New Zealand have a mandatory pre-migration qualification screening as a condition of eligibility for skilled migration. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority assesses international qualifications against New Zealand qualifications for migration purposes. As the delegation heard during its meeting with the Qualifications Authority, prospective migrants can seek a preassessment result and a full qualifications assessment report. A preassessment result is normally submitted at the initial stage of the skilled migration program. A qualifications assessment report is required at the final stage of a residence application. For regulated professionals in New Zealand, professional associations and registration authorities have their own requirements for membership or registration. Individuals need to have their qualifications assessed by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority as well as the appropriate professional authority or body. Skills recognition for the purpose of registration in certain professions in New Zealand is therefore a separate process to that for the purpose of migration. Accordingly, migrants to New Zealand may experience similar difficulties to those experienced by some migrants to Australia as a result of there being a gap between migration and registration skills recognition outcomes. This issue was discussed in the committee’s recent inquiry report on skills migration. Fourthly, the delegation was interested to hear more about New Zealand’s refugee program, including the role of volunteers and the provision of settlement services, to which the member for Reid just referred. As the delegation report notes, under the government’s refugee quota program, New Zealand currently accepts up to 750 refugees each year. All refugees accepted under the program complete a six-week orientation program at the Mangere Refugee Reception Centre in Auckland. The delegation visited Mangere and the members were taken on a tour of the facility. The delegation was interested in New Zealand’s structured approach to refugee resettlement, particularly the initial orientation provided at Mangere. The delegation heard that volunteers play an important role in refugee resettlement. New Zealand’s volunteer training program includes a nationally recognised certificate in refugee resettlement support, designed to provide volunteers with the skills needed to assist newly arrived refugees with the challenge of early settlement. Finally, the delegation very much welcomed the meeting with New Zealand’s peak ethnic councils, in particular the New Zealand Federation of Ethnic Councils, the Refugee Council of New Zealand and the Auckland Regional Ethnic Council. The delegation was impressed by the forward vision of the councils and their commitment to improving settlement outcomes for migrant communities in New Zealand. The delegation report notes the work of the councils in improving migrant workforce outcomes. To conclude, the delegation program was a busy and interesting one. On behalf of the delegation I would like to thank the New Zealand parliament and the Speaker of the House of Representatives in New Zealand, the honourable Margaret Wilson MP, for the hospitality extended to the delegation. I would also like to thank the New Zealand parliamentarians, government and non-government officials and peak ethnic groups with whom we met for the time they took to ensure that the delegation was well informed. Particular thanks go to our counterpart committees in New Zealand, the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Delegation members very much appreciated the briefing they received from both committees. Finally, I would like to thank the other committee members on the delegation—Senator Linda Kirk, the deputy leader of the delegation, Mr Laurie Ferguson, and Senator Stephen Parry—for their contribution to the visit. I also thank the New Zealand members, particularly Mr Gosche, who provided us with a great deal of hospitality. I also thank our committee secretary, Kate Sullivan, for her fantastic work in helping to put this committee visit together. It was a very meaningful exchange and it was an honour to be selected as the exchange committee for this parliament. I commend the report to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Adams) adjourned. 189 189 Debate resumed. 189 16:16:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 1 0 Mr HAASE —The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources investigated the development of the non-fossil fuel energy industry in Australia and considered a case study into the strategic importance of Australia’s uranium reserves. Fossil fuels are running out, while electricity demand in Australia is expected to continue growing strongly, more than doubling by 2050. We need to know how we are going to produce that additional energy. Today we have recommended that the Australian government identify and fund an authoritative scientific organisation to prepare and publish objective information relating to uranium mining, the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear power. Australia’s uranium reserves comprise an estimated 40 per cent of the world’s known estimated uranium reserves. However, any conclusions this committee has made and any conversations about developing Australia’s uranium reserves are purely hypothetical without the cooperation of the state and territory governments. The committee has recommended that the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, through the Council of Australian Governments and other means, encourage state governments to reconsider their opposition to uranium mining and abolish legislative restrictions on uranium and thorium mining and exploration where these exist. The majority of Australia’s uranium reserves are in Western Australia—in my electorate, to be more precise. We cannot access them because the current state government has a ban in place and will not even discuss the issue. Uranium mining would bring enormous economic benefit to the people of my electorate, to Western Australia and to this nation as a whole. The demand for uranium has never been higher and will continue to grow in the foreseeable future. There are nearly 450 nuclear plants worldwide, with many more under construction or planned. Nuclear power fuelled by uranium now accounts for 16 per cent of the world’s power generation. The Western Australian state government is holding back this country’s development of a non-fossil fuel industry because Premier Carpenter does not think this is an important issue and he will not discuss the potential for uranium, which is considerable. We have also recommended that the Australian government develop a communications strategy on uranium mining, uranium exports and nuclear power. This is a most significant recommendation for this committee to make. There is too much misinformation and misunderstanding of this issue. I speak to people about uranium almost daily, as everyone is aware of my staunch support for this energy source, and I have found that most people who oppose uranium mining or nuclear power have a very limited, often outdated, opinion. They talk about Chernobyl. That was 20 years ago. They talk about Three Mile Island. That was 27 years ago. Compare that to the car industry. Seatbelts were made compulsory in Australia in 1970. From 1970 until 2002 the fatality rate dropped from 30.4 to 8.8 deaths per hundred thousand of population. This reduction was achieved in spite of a huge increase in motor vehicle use. Would you say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that driving a car is as dangerous today as it was before 1970? I think not. Australia needs to have an open, informed discussion about the future. Short of communities giving up on energy usage, we will have to consider viable alternatives to fossil fuels. When you consider that one kilo of uranium in a fast-breeder reactor is equal to 2,700 tonnes of black coal or two million cubic metres of natural gas, it would be criminal to ignore another magnificent Western Australian resource. Proposed also in our report is the question of creating a centre of excellence for development and service to the nuclear industry. The opportunity to value-add to our uranium resource through the creation of such a centre of excellence, the production and supply of fuel rods to the world—and the opportunity to do that on a lease basis—and attending to the transportation, the recovery, the reconfiguration and the resupply would greatly enhance our opportunities and therefore add to the wealth of this country as a result of developing our uranium resource. There are many recommendations in this report—a report of some 700 pages. I believe it is one of the most thorough reviews of the whole issue of uranium. We received some 87 submissions on a whole range of topics—from the exploration for and the use of uranium, to the disposal of waste, the education opportunities and the employment opportunities—especially employment opportunities for Indigenous Australians. It is a tome worthy of consideration. I was speaking earlier about the need for Australians to be well informed about the issue of uranium and matters nuclear. This report is a publication that will serve many Australians well, given that they are motivated to find out some of the truths that surround uranium and nuclear waste. The brief to investigate this question was given to us by the minister back in March 2005—and here we are in December 2006. So one can see that this was no mere glance at the issue. I am very proud to have been associated with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources. In explaining my pride, I am also very pleased to acknowledge the hard work of our secretary, Mr Russell Chafer, the inquiry secretary, Mr Jerome Brown, and the assorted staff. They did a wonderful job in assisting us in the receipt of reports, the organisation of those reports and the field trips that we made to Beverly Springs and Olympic Dam to see the non-invasive methods of uranium extraction plus the open-cut and underground mining of uranium. It was a very worthwhile project, one that gave me great personal satisfaction and increased knowledge of the topic. I wholeheartedly commend this report. 190 16:24:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 0 0 Mr ADAMS —This inquiry by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry and Resources began in March 2005, some time ago. You can see by the size of the report that the information gathering took some time. Bringing such an amount of factual information and detail together was time-consuming. It is a very good report, which deals with many of the issues—and I commend the report to members of the chamber and the wider community. The committee was tasked to inquire into and report on the development of the non-fossil fuel energy industry in Australia, with particular regard to the global demand for Australia’s uranium resources and the supply issues. It was also tasked to inquire into the whole issue of uranium mining and the implications of global greenhouse gas emission reductions from the development and export of Australian uranium resources. When we first commenced the inquiry, there was little mention in Australia of uranium mining and even less of nuclear power’s much predicted global expansion. During the period of the inquiry, however, the committee noted a shift in the debate in relation to nuclear energy which seemed to be driven by community concerns about greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. There is a growing recognition that nuclear power could make a significant contribution to the mitigation of greenhouse gases. This realisation has led to some interesting debates, particularly as the green movement has been for many years diametrically opposed to any form of uranium mining and are still opposing it despite the fact that the whole industry has changed in all sorts of ways, including the treatment of waste—plus the fact that there is much less waste through new generation generators and the new technologies which are starting to emerge. The main civil use of uranium is for the generation of power, and the demand for mining of uranium needs to be assessed in the context of the world electricity consumption trends and nuclear power’s share of electricity production. As we have been told by many of the submissions, global primary energy demand is forecast by the International Energy Agency to expand by more than one half between 2003 and 2030—reaching 16 billion tonnes of oil equivalent by 2030. Demand is projected to grow at a rate of 1.6 per cent per year over that period. As China and India are now currently industrialising and there are other nations that are now experiencing power shortages for a number of reasons, they may also be looking at alternative energy sources. It is worth noting that the fuels used for the generation of electricity around the world can be broken down, and I think it lets people see exactly where energy is developed throughout the world. The majority of this demand by a long way is coal. Forty per cent of the world’s energy comes from coal; 19.2 per cent from natural gas; 6.9 per cent from oil; 16.3 per cent from hydro—all energy in Tasmania basically comes from hydro, except we now have a gas turbine in the north to give us some extra strength as well; 1.2 per cent from combustible renewables such as biomass; and 0.7 per cent from geothermal, solar and wind combined. I think it is worth saying that again: 0.7 per cent from geothermal, solar and wind combined. I support renewable energy. We should encourage it and we should do research into it, but it has a long way to go before it is going to be the answer to bulk-load power. Nuclear was the fourth largest fuel source at 15.7 per cent. Therefore, it has been on the agenda for some time and the demand for uranium for peaceful means is very strong. With the industrialisation of China and India, that demand for uranium is increasing greatly as both countries need to extend their energy needs enormously. The big issue of waste came up in a number of submissions. The report deals with that really well, in an open and constructive way. The evidence came through that the levels of waste in the future could be much lower because of new technologies such as pebble based technology and also the burning of more and more of the fuel as it goes into a reactor, with less waste left over to be dealt with. Of course, the states have day-to-day regulation control of uranium mining, along with health and safety, but the Australian government at a federal level is involved in environment regulation, particularly the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, which comes into play for any new or expanding uranium mine. So there are good regulations in place for this industry. Labor members had a number of concerns and they noted that, while there is conflicting evidence about the demand for new enrichment facilities, the lack of governance for enrichment facilities under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the IAEA safeguards regime should preclude the development of new enrichment facilities anywhere in the world. Under the current regime, there is nothing illegal about any country having enrichment technology, yet the acquisition of highly enriched uranium or separated plutonium is one of the most technically difficult but important steps towards making a nuclear weapon. If a country with a full nuclear cycle decided to break away from its non-proliferation commitments, a nuclear weapon capacity could be within reach in a short time. This is the dilemma now confronted in Iran. The nuclear proliferation treaty needs to be reviewed. The committee recommends that it is to be addressed in a question in chapter 7 of this report. We also noted that Australia lacks the skills base necessary to support a domestic enrichment industry, and therefore we opposed that in Australia at the moment. There is considerable evidence that Australia’s geology is highly suitable for the disposition or disposal of nuclear waste and that theoretically Australia has the technology and skills capacity to develop a nuclear waste industry. The reality is that Australia has not yet been able to leverage its capacity to manage its own low and intermediate waste at any level. This is related to the history of dishonest political campaigns and a failure of national leadership on this issue. Therefore we need to develop and improve Australia’s capacity to manage domestic low and intermediate level waste, so it would be imprudent at any stage to consider any further developments of nuclear waste industry here. We also considered that, while nuclear power is a useful and clean energy source, the development of nuclear power in the foreseeable future is not economic and does not stack up against the current power sources available. Australia has two current options for securing reliable and competitive base load power in the long term—clean coal and nuclear energy. Australia’s low electricity prices as a result of coal-fired power generation are a key source of competitive advantage for the nation’s industries, and Australia’s priority should therefore be to clean up coal-fired power generation, increase the uptake of gas and renewable technologies for peaking niche markets and support the research and development of new and renewable technologies for future base load. At this stage on our side of the House, we therefore oppose the development of a nuclear power industry in Australia. This report has been very thorough, with enormous amounts of evidence and a hell of a lot of work. I thank the staff—Russell Chafer, Mr Jerome Brown, Ms Peggy Danaee and Penelope Humphries—for the task that they have done in putting together the work. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired) 192 16:34:00 Kelly, Jackie, MP GK6 Lindsay LP 1 0 Miss JACKIE KELLY —I would like to echo the comments of the member for Lyons in terms of the efforts of Russell and Jerome and the staff of this committee for the work that they have done on what is technically, I think, one of the most comprehensive reports that this parliament has produced in some time. It does go into scientific detail in a way that is necessary to educate the public on uranium mining, and also the uranium industry as a whole, from enrichment and fabrication through to use in power plants and subsequent disposal. But it does not go into the cost of these things, such as the cost of a fabrication plant or an enrichment plant. It does not go into the likelihood or feasibility of any of that happening in Australia. Similarly, it does not go into the cost-effectiveness of a power station. Hence, the recommendations are qualified in terms of the cost-effectiveness. It is no surprise to those on the committee that I have been strongly anti-nuclear since, I think, my school days—call it the Chernobyl factor, the Three Mile Island factor or what you will. I have an inherent dislike of nuclear power stations—a nervousness. There were years of scientific evidence that said how safe Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were, and these things just keep on rolling along. The political costs are a critical thing that needs to be built into any comparison of nuclear energy and coal. That is something we did not really investigate, but I have done a lot of investigation of the American experience. They operate a number of power stations and, clearly, as this report indicates, all the waste is kept on site. As the power stations get newer and newer, the waste can be kept on site in ‘swimming pools’. The waste gets less radioactive, but eventually—and no-one disputes this—it must go somewhere. The US power industry has levied that industry at 1½ per cent for 30 years now. In that time, that levy has raised over $US40 billion—and $US20 billion of that has been spent on trying to find a terminal solution at Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. Nevada—surprise, surprise—has three seats in the US House of Representatives. One seat is held by the Republicans, one seat is held by the Democrats and one is a marginal seat. At the recent elections, the marginal seat was barely retained by the incumbent Republican after a very long struggle. The future of Yucca Mountain was one of the key things on which he distinguished himself from the other candidates. He had a very strong pro local position of: ‘Not in my backyard; put it in someone else’s backyard.’ I fear that the typical reaction to nuclear power stations right throughout Australia will be: ‘Not in my backyard.’ The political cost of that needs to be calculated and factored into any competitive suggestion that nuclear power in Australia could possibly become cheaper than coal in the future. As this report shows, it would require fairly substantial imposts on the coal industry to make it anywhere near as expensive as nuclear power. Those imposts come in various forms. Carbon credits are currently trading in New South Wales at $14 a cubic tonne of carbon—and you can generate those carbon credits any which way. There is a terrific program running in New South Wales whereby they are handing out light bulbs. The more light bulbs you hand out, the greater the credits you gain. But they found that people were not actually putting the light bulbs in the sockets. So now, to get the carbon credit, you actually have to go into the homes and put the light bulbs in the sockets—and you get carbon credits based on how many light bulbs you put in the sockets. Similarly, Greening Australia is working on a program to plant a number of trees—for which you get carbon credits that can then be traded for carbon emissions. So how expensive does carbon have to get before it is competitive with nuclear? One of the recommendations of this committee is to build cost-effectiveness into any consideration of the impact it would have. I do not have a problem with an expansion of the three mines policy. We have been mining uranium in Australia for some time, and we have benefited from that. It makes no sense to have three super mines. Why not bust it up and have, in a competitive industry, as many people mine as want to mine? I think we all agreed on that. This was a case study out of the committee’s main study into developing Australia’s non-fossil fuel energy industry. I really look forward to our examination of the other areas, particularly hydrogen. I think that has some fantastic possibilities in the future. Some of the emissions that we are most concerned about obviously are from our mobile transport, not just our power generators, in terms of cars and car traffic. You can see that in Beijing, Singapore, Rome, London, New York. It is the emissions coming from cars that need to be severely reduced to combat global warming. So hydrogen cars offer the best response to that. There are some horrific figures of the number of cars in the world more than doubling over the next 10 years, so the drive to find a less polluting source than fossil fuels is huge—hydrogen is one of them—as is the drive to find a reliable green source of hydrogen. I think Australia is in a prime position, with some of our north-west Australian geographic features, to be a key deliverer in that area. We can see Australia jump from being a key provider of coal to a key provider of hydrogen into the future. I do not know that we have to go down the nuclear path at all. In the interim, I am all for mining it and making the most of our uranium resources, but I in no way endorse a nuclear industry in Australia. I do not believe that it would even economically come close to stacking up with coal before hydrogen offers us some better solutions in combating greenhouse gases. So it was a very interesting report. My colleagues on the committee were very pro uranium and the industry as a whole. I suppose I have some natural reservations. Obviously, I could be the one out in the cold, because I did a straw poll of a couple of schools I was at recently. I noticed the nuclear fuel cycle was running on the storyboards around the classroom, so clearly the children had been studying nuclear energy. I asked, ‘Who’s in favour of nuclear energy?’ thinking that it would be like when I was at school and there would be a blanket ‘No’—that 100 per cent would just go ‘No’. Fifty per cent of the children actually said yes. So it could be like the republican debate: I could be out of touch with my electorate, especially the younger people coming through who obviously did not grow up under the cloud of nuclear obliteration from the old Cold War days or grow up with real-time experiences of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island happening in their lifetime. Clearly the younger generation have a much more scientific and forensic examination of the industry and future power sources for Australia. Besides those reservations that I have, I commend the report to the committee. It is very technically drafted. It covers a lot of the information that most people need to know. I find it very easy to read—for the nontechnophobes or the technophobes of our parliament. So I do recommend it to my colleagues, especially given the whole nuclear debate which is generating in Australia as we move to the big question of what comes after coal. In the interim I still remain wedded to coal, and I think that marriage will go on long enough to see us jump to hydrogen before we need to resort to nuclear energy in Australia. Debate (on motion by Ms Hall) adjourned. 194 194 Debate resumed. 194 16:44:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 0 Ms GRIERSON —I wish to support the report tabled today, Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2005. As part of its role, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration scrutinises the performance of the Reserve Bank in its functions of implementing monetary policy and managing the bank payments system. This report deals mainly with the presentation of the RBA governor and his executive at the committee hearing held in Sydney in August of this year. It was quite a historic event: Governor Ian Macfarlane—the Governor of the Reserve Bank for a decade—was soon to retire, and Deputy Governor Glenn Stevens had just been confirmed as the next Governor of the Reserve Bank. It is true to say that neither disappointed in their performance. In exploring the current state of the economy, 15 years of expansion, high employment and a growth rate revealing the impact of significant capacity constraints, the governor’s attention and that of the committee was focused on inflation and the impact of past and further interest rate rises—and they keep coming. In regard to capacity constraints, the governor was an optimist—efficient use of labour and capital, he claimed. That may all be correct. However, in my city, the Port of Newcastle faces the difficulties posed by this economic state where capacity constraints hold back growth. The Port of Newcastle remains at high export efficiency. The rail infrastructure bottlenecks have been partly attended to and coal loader expansion is underway, but demand from our developing nations—China and India particularly—just keeps growing. The 50 ships off our coastline will be there for quite a while. The other impact of the failure of this government to tackle these capacity constraints is, in real terms, inflation. In real terms, to the Australian people it means interest rate rises. In fact, those interest rate rises have kept coming. In August we had an interest rate rise. In November we had an interest rate rise, which was the fourth interest rate rise since this term of parliament began. The governor took the opportunity at that hearing to deal with and try to explain comments he made to a previous committee hearing regarding tax cuts. He actually said that his comments were completely misinterpreted. Further, he told the committee that he was trying to pour a bit of cold water on the idea of having really big tax cuts and big fiscal expansion. I hope that John Howard and Peter Costello are listening, because we do not want to see a wasted opportunity next year when the budget is announced. Governor Macfarlane commented on the possible fiscal stimulus of federal and state budgets by saying: We are now entering a period where there are capacity constraints where we really do not want the economy growing much faster than the twos to threes. The economy is in a situation where it is more sensitive to what happens with fiscal policy than it has been in the past. In his statement he said that his best guess was that, if the federal budget outcome is as it is budgeted, that would be equivalent to a fiscal stimulus of half a per cent of GDP. He then said: ‘If you add the state budgets’ stimulus as well, then you end up with one per cent stimulus and you end up with an economy that is prone to inflation’— 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —State budget deficits. 00AMP Grierson, Sharon, MP Ms GRIERSON —Do not blame the states, please. Who leads fiscal policy in this country? I think his name is Peter Costello. I think the governor has given a strong message, saying: ‘Let’s be very sensible with fiscal policy. Let’s not waste opportunities in terms of capacity constraints and helping this economy grow. Let’s not use tax cuts without thought to the impact on the economy as a whole and, therefore, the ordinary voters of Australia, who have to wear any negative impacts in their budget each week.’ At that hearing we also canvassed the concept of a dual economy, and the governor was quite optimistic because he stated that we have had a dual economy before, where states have had varying conditions. That may be true. Currently we do have Western Australia booming and we do have negative growth in New South Wales, but we have never had the situation before where the most populous states have that negative growth. You have to be very mindful that, if there are recession tendencies in the most populous state in Australia, it is going to have an impact on the whole of Australia. So I do differ from the governor in that regard. The dual economy deserves closer examination. We also discussed housing affordability. Obviously, interest rates do impact on peoples’ mortgages. There were some interesting explanations by the governor as to why he thought housing affordability was an issue. He said that it was not interest rate rises; it was perhaps land release policies by the states and the cost of infrastructure, roads and electricity et cetera being passed on to the customer. He also said that demand had been high in the past, prices had been reasonable in the past, interest rates had been reasonable and people were therefore encouraged to borrow—and borrow they had. Banks had made credit readily available and people had easily been able to access large mortgages—much larger than perhaps they could afford when things change. What the governor did not mention is that the government has also contributed to that housing unaffordability by halving capital gains tax in its terms and having a first homeowner grant with no cap on it—for anyone, no matter whether they are buying a million-dollar mansion or a $300,000 average priced home in Newcastle, further pushing house prices up. So, really, the stories are much more complex. I give credit to the governor: he does not have to handle some of those policy measures. Again, that is fiscal policy in the hands of this government. We also looked at the problem where capacity remains tight and productivity growth is not as high. When we looked at the skills issue we very much looked at the downturn for manufacturers and the workforce issues they face. They cannot find skilled labour at a time when they need many more workers. Also, the service sector cannot get entrepreneurs and people trained in management at a rate they need right now in this boom period, because they just have not been trained. That is more a failure of education policy, not monetary policy. The committee has taken up that challenge by looking at the state of the manufacturing and service sector in this country and trying to develop policy solutions that might overcome some of these problems in the future—for example, what sort of public policy will assist our manufacturers to be in the highest growth sectors, as is the case in some developed countries, rather than facing the constraints they are suffering at the moment. The new governor certainly set his stamp in terms of the sort of governor he would be. Since that hearing, he has strongly said that inflation measures would always be the deciding factor in shifting interest rates. He has lived up to the promise, I suppose, that he made clear through authorising the last interest rate rise. Also, when asked by the committee about the relationship with Treasury and the Treasurer, he made it very clear—and I applaud him for this—that there would always be, under his leadership, an independent Reserve Bank. It would always act independently under its charter, with its responsibility to the national economy and the Australian people. It is always a pleasure to meet with the RBA in that committee and look at the economic challenges from every different perspective. I send my best wishes to former Governor Macfarlane. When you have the great pleasure of reading his series of Boyer lectures you will know that he has had all sorts of views on our economy. He has a historical perspective that has acknowledged the great reforms of Labor. In some ways he has been bolder now perhaps where he could not be as bold before. I wish him every success. I know that he will continue to contribute to this country in many ways. His experience over 10 years is something we should all perhaps study. I would recommend his Boyer lectures to every member of parliament. They are an education in themselves. I look forward to the next hearing with the economics committee and the new governor, Glenn Stevens, which will be held in February next year, in Perth—we might as well go where the boom is happening—and we will be again looking at monetary policy. I can only hope, though, that the Australian people face Christmas and the New Year without any other threats to their family budgets. 197 16:54:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 1 0 Mr CIOBO —I am certainly pleased to rise in the Main Committee this afternoon to speak to the Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2005, a report put forward by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to remark on a number of the key findings of the committee’s report into the Reserve Bank’s conduct of monetary policy. This report comes off the back of the hearing that the committee held, chaired ably by the member for Cook, the Hon. Bruce Baird, on 18 August 2006. It was certainly a momentous day—an opportunity for the committee to give its thanks to the outgoing Governor of the Reserve Bank, Ian Macfarlane, who so ably and dedicatedly led that organisation for approximately a decade. Likewise, it was a chance for the committee to welcome the incoming governor, Glenn Stevens. We certainly look forward to working closely and cooperatively with Glenn Stevens in our capacity of providing parliamentary oversight over the operations and conduct of monetary policy by the Reserve Bank. I would like to pick up on a couple of points made by the member for Newcastle as well as generally addressing some of the findings of the committee. What we know from the Reserve Bank’s testimony before the committee—from their Statement on monetary policy that they previously released—is that the Australian economy is in very good shape. Thanks to 10 years of responsible and careful economic management by the Howard government and in particular by the Treasurer, Peter Costello, the Australian people currently enjoy a level of prosperity that they have never enjoyed before. The economic certainty—the fact that our economy has been growing successfully for 15 years—underscores the very proud track record that this government has in delivering meaningful prosperity to the Australian people. On all of the key economic indicators, the Australian people are enjoying a period of sustained economic sunshine. Unemployment is down to a 30-year low. It is foreseeable by both the Reserve Bank and the committee—although it may not be all members of the committee; I am sure the opposition would disagree with us—that unemployment will remain at generational lows, thanks to the strong economic growth created by the Howard government. It is also worth noting that the Reserve Bank touched on, and expanded upon, comments they had previously made to the committee about the importance of labour market flexibility. About 12 months ago, the Reserve Bank governor indicated to the committee that the Reserve Bank felt that labour market flexibility was a key driver of sustained economic growth into the future. The Reserve Bank governor made it very clear that, for Australia to continue to enjoy the benefits and prosperity that come from sustained economic growth, it was fundamental that there be increased labour market flexibility and that, where governments took the time and the initiative to introduce greater flexibility in the labour force, the consequent benefit that would flow from that increased flexibility was continued economic growth. That, in large part, underlines the very reason why this government introduced its Work Choices policy. Work Choices provides the very flexibility that a well-credentialled and forward-looking man like the former Governor of the Reserve Bank Ian Macfarlane knows—as, I am sure, the current Governor of the Reserve Bank, Glenn Stevens, knows—is fundamental to maintaining that prosperity. To use the words of the Prime Minister, the reforms of today guarantee the prosperity of tomorrow. It is worth highlighting that, especially for those members opposite who like to discard this kind of information from the Reserve Bank from the public record. Likewise with respect to inflation. It was very interesting to hear the Reserve Bank board’s thoughts on inflation in Australia. Certainly we know that the headline rate of inflation has been higher than otherwise would ordinarily be desired and, as a committee, we certainly know that the inflation rate—the principal driver of monetary policy in this country—has been bumping at the top of the Reserve Bank’s desired range of two to three per cent. But we also know the reason why this has come about. The Reserve Bank board, in its Statement on monetary policy as well as evidence adduced to the committee, highlighted that there were an enlarged number of one-off factors that were contributing to this higher level of inflation. In addition to that, the Reserve Bank also highlighted that, given that Australia has enjoyed 15 years of economic prosperity—given that the Australian economy has been growing by over three per cent for nigh on 15 years—it is little wonder that we should be starting to experience some capacity constraints on economic growth in Australia. A direct impact of some capacity constraints is that inflation tends to creep a little bit higher. So there were no surprises for the Reserve Bank and no surprises for the members of the government who sit on the committee. But all of this comes as a revelation to the opposition members, who unfortunately attempted to use the fact that we have had such a long and sustained period of economic growth—and, therefore, some upward pressure on inflation—as being in some way some gigantic revelation, when in fact it is quite the opposite. What was also clear from the Reserve Bank’s testimony is that this government’s track record of delivering surplus budgets back to the Australian people by way of tax cuts is not irresponsible. What the Reserve Bank made very clear in its testimony to the committee was that tax cuts that maintain a budget surplus of about one to 1½ per cent of GDP are not irresponsible at all, and that is what this government has done. In fact, the Reserve Bank governor went out of his way to clarify remarks that have been misused and misconstrued by members opposite with respect to tax cuts and to highlight that the tax cuts this government has delivered have not been overly stimulatory and have been affordable. Furthermore, what is very clear if one reads between the lines from the Reserve Bank governor’s statements is that it has been the deficit budgets of state governments, when taken in collaboration with the responsible repayment of taxpayers’ money by this federal government through sustainable budget surpluses, that are putting an incredible amount of upward pressure on interest rates. It is not the fact that the Howard government, under the stewardship of the Treasurer, Peter Costello, when it comes to the economy, has delivered money back into the pockets of ordinary Australians. It is not the fact that we provided $34 billion worth of tax cuts. It is the fact that at virtually every tier we have state Labor governments running budget deficits at a time of unsurpassed economic wealth and generation of wealth in this country which is causing the problems. I say to all the state Labor Treasurers: do not come to Canberra and say that it is the policies of this government that cause interest rates to go up when it is very clear not only on my assessment but on the assessment of those umpires of monetary policy in the Australian economy, the Reserve Bank board, that deficit budgets by Labor state governments are putting an incredible amount of upward pressure on interest rates. I say to all the state governments: do something to get your books back in order. In addition to that, state Labor governments could also address the overwhelming desire and need to ensure that, when it comes to key infrastructure facilities such as railroads and ports, they actually do something to increase capacity for these key pieces of economic infrastructure that help to expand the Australian economy going forward—the kind of infrastructure that does not see 50 ships floating off the port of Newcastle but actually sees those ships being able to call into port, load up with the various stock, load up with the various commodities, and export them overseas and generate wealth for this country. That is what we need to see. I would also question, in the less than two minutes I have remaining, what it was that the member for Newcastle was alluding to when she said that part of the problem of housing affordability—and I will touch on this in more detail—was the first home owners grant and the fact that this government has halved capital gains tax. It seems very clear to me that what the member for Newcastle was saying was that the problem with housing affordability is not only a lack of or limited land release or that headwork charges have skyrocketed under state Labor governments but that the federal government is providing stamp duty relief through the first home owners grant and, furthermore, has halved capital gains tax. The member for Newcastle in this chamber only moments ago said implicitly that there should be no first home owners grant and that there should not have been a halving of capital gains tax. I would be fascinated to know whether the shadow Treasurer is supportive of the comments of the member for Newcastle about halving capital gains tax and the first home owners grant being a problem. In both those respects I would be very keen to find out what the Labor Party has to say. Furthermore, and just expanding on this point a little more fully, it was also clear from the evidence provided by the Governor of the Reserve Bank that the key driver of unaffordability when it comes to housing has been the fact that state governments continue to not release land. This lack of release of greenfield sites by state governments, coupled with skyrocketing headwork charges, has certainly put a huge amount of upward pressure on the prices of homes therefore locking so many young Australians out of the opportunity to buy a home, despite the fact that this government seeks to assist them through, for example, the first home owners grant. As a result of the evidence provided to the committee and outlined in this report, the Australian people can look forward to continued economic sunshine in the future. 200 17:04:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 1 0 Mr SECKER —We have now had 15 or 16 years of extraordinarily good growth, a healthy economy in this country, and that sort thing does not happen by chance. When you look at the Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 2005 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I think you will see we can learn many things from the Reserve Bank of Australia as to how they have helped our government—our government has certainly helped the Reserve Bank—to set the key areas to continue the healthy growth of this economy. The then Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Macfarlane, did indicate a real concern—and I think it sticks out very clearly from this review—that the changes in housing affordability for Australians are a clear worry for many people. But, as Mr Macfarlane said, the real concern is the increase in the cost of housing and the cost of the land, as opposed to the increase in the interest rates. Certainly a lot of people—in particular, young people—are purchasing houses or putting themselves in a position to purchase a house. The problem is not the interest rates. If we had to buy houses under Labor’s interest rates, it would be impossible. Seventeen per cent on borrowing for an average home in Sydney would be beyond most people in average conditions. The difference between now and five to 10 years ago is actually the cost of housing, not the interest rates, because interest rates of course are much lower. In fact, the interest rates on housing are lower now than they have ever been, compared with Labor’s 13 years in government. The two recent interest rate rises certainly have increased the cost of mortgage repayments—we cannot deny that—but purchasing a house now will cost a fair amount more than it would have done 10 years ago. When looking at housing affordability, we also need to look at the role of state governments in relation to land releases. Mr Macfarlane looked at the supply and demand theory and suggested that price increases are due to excessive demand over supply. Because Australia has a good economy and returned to low inflation, and interest rates were halved, borrowing became a lot easier. People borrowed more and therefore drove up housing prices. But we also need to look at the supply-side issues in relation to land releases. I think state governments all around Australia have been at fault here. With the reluctance to release new land and buyers now having to pay up-front for services like sewerage, roads, footpaths and other services, this has enormously increased the price of new homes. These factors are very important to people when they decide whether to buy or to build. It is not the interest rates that are scaring people; it is the up-front cost of the housing loan that is scaring them. For some of these houses for sale these days, very little has changed on the house in the last 10 years except the price. These changes certainly have not been steady and across the board in each state. This issue determines where people will decide to live and invest their money. When we look at the pace of economic expansion and domestic economic conditions in Australia, we see that it appears to have picked up over the first half of 2006, with business investments becoming particularly strong in Western Australia and Queensland, where the activity has continued to run faster than in the rest of the country. In the hearing the issue of the dual economy was raised with the Reserve Bank of Australia. Up to the June quarter, unemployment in Western Australia was averaging 3.6 per cent whilst in New South Wales unemployment was 5.4 per cent. That is quite a large difference—50 per cent in fact. Perth house prices, as a result, have increased by 28.8 per cent for the year to the March quarter, and house prices fell 3.1 per cent in New South Wales. Mr Macfarlane indicated that there is a lot of flexibility in the economy now which, even with those sorts of problems, is making things a lot better than they would have been 30 years ago. When we look at the household sector, we see that the Reserve Bank of Australia reported that household demand strengthened in the first half of the year following a period of moderate growth in consumption spending and a corresponding increase in the household saving ratio in 2005. The volume of retail sales increased by 3.6 per cent over the year. Consumer sentiment rose in July and remains at above-average levels after having eased in recent months in line with higher petrol prices and the increase in the cash rate in early May. One of the larger areas of responsibility for the Reserve Bank of Australia is inflation. Of course, one of the main levers that they use to control inflation is interest rates, to hopefully reduce the supply of money. We can all see from this information that the health of the economy is greatly admired all over the world. In fact, if you want to look at what is causing some of the pressure on interest rates apart from the amount of supply of money that we have, you can see that the demand for loans is not due to the federal government. In fact, over the 10½ years of this government, we have reduced debt by $96 billion—no mean feat when you consider that it took this country 90 years, since Federation, to accumulate in total $16 billion of debt. In that time we actually built a new Australian capital, we had two world wars and quite a few other skirmishes and we had to build up a federal bureaucracy. It took us 90 years to accumulate $16 billion worth of debt. But, over the next five years of the Labor government, what we as a country took 90 years to do they did every year for the next five years. So we went from $16 billion to $96 billion in five years, from 1991 to 1996. We were elected on the basis that we needed to reduce that debt and reduce the demand on money. If you believe in the Friedman idea of the cause of inflation—and certainly I do—that is what had increased the interest rates. That is why interest rates went through the roof during the term of the Labor government. We have reduced that demand on money and we have now taken the debt from $96 billion down to zero. In fact, now we actually have money in credit, which serves us well. But isn’t it funny that what we saw Labor do federally we see them in the states—we have Labor governments all around the country—falling for the old problem. They have actually increased the demand on loans themselves. Their budgets have all gone into deficit, no matter how good the times are and no matter how much of a windfall they have had from things like land taxes and stamp duties, which we would all hope they would reduce. In fact, in my state of South Australia they actually increased the stamp duty on houses—yet another way of increasing the cost of housing. Here we are, as a federal government, giving a $7,000 grant for new home building, and someone buying an average house in South Australia is charged about $15,000 in stamp duty by the state government. So we giveth and they taketh, which is the old Labor way. As a result of that, in South Australia, for example, each year they are getting about $200 million extra from GST receipts. They get all of the money from GST. They have been getting all the money from their windfall taxes in stamp duty and land tax. As a result, in South Australia alone, they are about $500 million better off than they would have been under the old system and without those windfall taxes. But what did they do? Did they reduce their deficit? No. They have actually increased it. They have increased their borrowings, which puts pressure on our interest rates. This is happening all around Australia with state governments. So I think it is very clear that, if you want a government to actually manage the economy, you elect a coalition government. If you want disaster, you elect Labor. (Time expired) Debate (on motion by Ms Hall) adjourned. 202 202 Debate resumed. 202 17:15:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 0 0 Ms HALL —I made an initial contribution to the debate on the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing entitled The blame game in the House earlier today. I believe that it is such an important report that I have a need to expand on my earlier contribution. The report is aptly named The blame game because it examines issues that impinge on our health service—our services to Australian people. I am in a unique position. I have stood in a state parliament and blamed the Commonwealth for problems that exist within our health system and I have been in this House and listened to the states being blamed for problems within our health system. The truth of the matter is that both levels of government must bear responsibility in one way or another for the problems that have existed. It is a very easy out for all levels of government to say that the problems have been caused by the Commonwealth or that the problems have been caused by the states. The issue is: how do we get the best value for our health dollars? How do the Australian people get the best outcome as far as health is concerned? Is it through each level of government? Local government get in there and do their bit too, blaming both the state and the Commonwealth for problems. Usually their complaints are directed towards the states, but they do blame the Commonwealth as well. I note that local government, particularly in Western Australia, have some very innovative approaches and have worked to get around the health professional shortage in their areas by digging into their own funds, which are quite often limited, to ensure that there are health professionals in their area. I think that the first commitment that governments at all levels need to make is to ensure that the blame game stops. I think every member of the committee feels equally as strongly about that as I do. There are a number of models that we can look at to end this blame game. We can look at a model where the states take full responsibility for health. We can look at a model where the Commonwealth takes full responsibility for health. I might just mention that last year the Prime Minister set up a task force, headed up by Andrew Podger, to look at this very issue. It is my understanding, from evidence that he gave to the committee, that he supports a Commonwealth-led model. Unfortunately, his report was never made public. Another model is Commonwealth-state pooled funding of the health system. There is the Scotton managed competition model. Each of these has benefits and each of them has some drawbacks. What the committee did was put the models on the drawing board so that people could look at them and then have further discussion of those issues. One area that does lead to the blame game and arguments for cost-shifting is outlined in recommendation 16 of the report. Recommendation 13 looked at the way the health system is funded and at varying funding arrangements. Recommendation 13 talks about the utilisation of growth factors that can rise or fall in response to the actual level of services provided on the basis of clinical need and the formula that is used when funding health services. Recommendation 16 is about the GST and the impact that it has on ‘specific purpose payments’. For those members who are not so familiar with that, specific purpose payments are impacted on by the amount of funds that are in the GST pool. Basically, it has the effect of reducing the funds that can be allocated to the funding of hospitals and health. I think that that unanimous recommendation of the committee in the report will go some way towards dealing with that issue. This morning I mentioned that there should be a national health agenda, which is recommendation 11 of the committee report. I think that too would lead to a diminution of the blame game. If all levels of government and all players in the health system can commit to a national health agenda then the health system and the people who utilise it—that is, all Australians—will benefit. Recommendation 3, dealing with dental services, is very important, one that I believe we all felt very strongly about. As I said earlier today, the issue of dental services is one that each and every member of the public is confronted with on a daily basis. So I think it is important that we are brave and that we do address that issue. The skills shortage in the healthcare workforce has an impact on all regions and all electorates within Australia, but it has a greater impact the further you are from the Sydney Harbour Bridge. In my area we have a chronic shortage of doctors. Although the government has put in place some initiatives to address that, I have to say a lot more needs to be done in that area. It is very important that the skills shortage is addressed. I do not think that bringing in doctors from overseas is the answer; there are some ethical issues associated with that. It is very important that the government look at the relevant recommendation in this report and strongly commit to the training of health professionals. It is important for Australia’s future. I refer people to recommendation 5, a very good recommendation, and to recommendation 4, which recommends: The Department of Health and Ageing take a lead role to better coordinate the existing jurisdiction-based recruitment of overseas trained health professionals … I definitely think we would benefit from the Commonwealth taking that lead role, along with ensuring that adequate numbers of health professionals are trained. That is of vital importance to the Australian people, because not having the health professionals on the ground has an enormous impact on the Australian people. I could talk for hours on this report. It is one of the best reports that I have seen in this parliament. It is a report that offers solutions, it is a report that identifies problems and it is a report that can show us the way forward, and the government should get behind the recommendations. It is a unanimous report, which was hard to get to because of the different perspectives that we all have on health. But the bottom line is that it is a document that governments of all persuasions can work with and that can deliver better health outcomes to the Australian people. I thank Ian Bigg, and I thank the secretariat yet again. They did a fantastic job and, without their assistance and the participation of the chair, Alex Somlyay, we would not have the report that we have before us today. (Time expired) 204 17:25:00 Cadman, Alan, MP SD4 Mitchell LP 1 0 Mr CADMAN —I was not as heavily involved with this committee inquiry as I could have been due to having a number of committees meeting at the same time, but I am delighted with the report. I think it is extremely well written and comes with practical management solutions to what is a most difficult problem in Australia—probably the most difficult management problem for Australian governments, both federal and state, and even local. One of the things that struck me about the report was how well Australia comes out compared with the rest of the world on most of the things relating to health. In ‘Health expenditure per person, Australia and other selected OECD countries’, for instance, Australia in 1993 spent slightly over $2,000 per person. The OECD average was $2,400. In 2003 Australia spent $3,855, and the OECD average was $4,000. We spend slightly less than Canada, more than France, a lot more than Japan, more than New Zealand, more than the UK and less than the US. I think that is not a bad place for us to be, but it means that we need to be very careful. When we examine the funding flows for hospital and medical services, it looks like that famous Barry Jones concoction which looks like spaghetti junction. It was supposed to be a process of projecting what the future for Australia was going to be like. The health funding process is looking exactly like that. There are arrows and lines going in all directions, and that is part of the management difficulties identified by the committee which need cleaning up. In examining the funding costs and the capacity to shift blame and costs, the committee went into a whole lot of detail about how this is occurring and can occur. Some people say it is a matter of good management to make somebody else pay; others say it is a matter of complexity. Both answers are right; however, where it can be avoided it will save costs. The estimated costs of cleaning up the management system are somewhere between $1 billion and $4 billion. So there is much to be gained if we just clean up the system and make it more efficient and are prepared to work together so that we get adequate and good results for the benefit of those seeking to use the health system. On selected health indicators, taking Australia’s ranking among OECD countries on life expectancy, morbidity, mortality, health, labour force and risk factors, Australia works out very well compared with the rest of the world. I am very conscious that Australia is often criticised for having a poor health system. I think our health system is about as good as anybody else’s, if not better. It is better than most, and we should be proud of it. It does not mean to say that every citizen is satisfied with it. I know in Western Sydney there are a lot of people unhappy with the current health system and the way in which it operates, and a lot more can be done to make sure that it works more effectively and that some of the management practices are changed. When one comes to look at the variation between the states and public hospitals, however, it is very interesting to note the way in which management has occurred. For instance, in Victoria, administrative staff number about 9,000 and diagnostic and other health professionals number about 11,000. In New South Wales, it is round the other way: there are more administrative staff than there are health professionals, and that does not surprise any of us who live in New South Wales. They are so busy managing they do not look after the people who are crook. That is a great shame because the system suffers from being overbureaucratic and it suffers from being unable to deliver the expectation of the people of that state. One aspect of the report that I found particularly interesting was about investment in prevention and early detection, an emphasis that is now being given by state and federal governments in, for instance, kidney health. The report says: Chronic kidney disease is a common, under-recognized, progressive, preventable and treatable condition. Over the last 25 years, while the Australian population has grown less than 40 per cent, the numbers of Australians being treated with dialysis or a kidney transplant has grown by more than 400 per cent. That indicates that we are into the system far too late. Kidney failure and other problems have increased greatly, but we are not into the system in a way that will stop these preventable traumatic occurrences. Osteoporosis is another one. It is a preventable skeletal disorder. In 2001, two million people had osteoporosis. Attributable direct costs are about $1.9 billion per annum. The disease affects women in particular but it also affects men. Bone density testing, medication and diet and can make a big difference. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is another disease where early intervention and better lifestyles can make a real difference to the health and cost outcomes. Multiple sclerosis is a random, chronic and disabling disease, the cost of which is approximately $1.3 billion per year. All of these things can be dealt with more effectively. I refer the House to the recommendations in the early part of the report. I agree with previous speakers about some of the significant recommendations relating to the coordination of the existing jurisdiction based recruitment of overseas trainees. I think most Aussies would prefer to have locally trained staff, and the Commonwealth should take a role in the identification of appropriate staff and their coming to Australia. Another committee of which I was a member found that a tradition has grown in the area of adoption such that the states have taken charge of adoption but are not doing it particularly well. This is another area where a committee has identified a need for effective Commonwealth leadership. Another recommendation is about providing an adequate number of health professional graduates to meet the projected demands. The committee recommended that the government have a strategy to produce enough medical professionals by 2021 to meet Australia’s needs. That seems a long way off—it seems a long lead time—but, when one examines the number of doctors, specialists and nurses needed to fulfil our projected needs, 2021 is a reasonable target. It is absolutely essential that the necessary funding to expand the training system is forthcoming. It is no good stealing other people’s graduates and hoping that they will fit into Australian conditions and go to the bush or to remote areas. It just will not happen. When my wife and I lived in outback New South Wales, we were most thankful to have the services of Dr Paul Retter, a refugee from Czechoslovakia. He was a wonderful doctor. He moved to the city and now lives in my electorate. He is now in his nineties. Paul Retter and his wife, Irene, were a godsend to the people in those remote areas. They were frequently asked out to dinner, and they were highly regarded. Whether it was for mothers with little kids, elderly people with chronic disease, or accidents which occur on farms and in rural areas frequently, their services were absolutely critical to the survival of that community. There are not too many Paul Retters in the world. Doctors who are used to living in urban areas in other countries come to Australia and expect to fit straight into an urban environment. That should not be their expectation. They should be trained to serve the whole of Australia. Nothing is better than the home-grown doctor or medical professional, and that is the focus that we need to give. I commend this report. It is a very interesting and sensible report, as you would expect. The committee was extremely well led by Alex Somlyay, who is a man of great experience and has great skill in producing terrific reports. This will make a difference to Australia and I look forward to the government’s response to it. 206 17:35:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 0 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I too rise to speak on the report on health funding of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. I would just like to note that the committee has been very well served by its chair, the honourable member for Fairfax, and the deputy chair, the member for Shortland. The member for Shortland will shortly be stepping down due to other commitments. As it happens, I will be assuming the position of deputy chair. I look forward to continuing the good work of the honourable members for Shortland and Fairfax. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing convened its inquiry into health funding to investigate and report on how the Commonwealth government can take a leading role in improving the efficient and effective delivery of high quality health care in Australia. It is worth emphasising that the purpose of this body, consisting of federal members of parliament reporting to the federal government, is focused on what the federal government can do. The report is partially named The blame game. It is not the purpose of this inquiry or its report to give the government reason or opportunity to say, ‘Don’t look at us—don’t tell us what needs to be done; tell it to the states,’ or, ‘We’re the good guys and the states are the bad guys,’ or, ‘The states are the good guys and the federal government are the bad guys.’ The report, which was signed off by MPs across the party divide, contains a message to the federal government which consists of actions that, in the committee membership’s view and that of the many witnesses and contributors to the report from around the country, the federal government itself needs to pursue and implement. The report includes 32 recommendations, covering a national health agenda, the health workforce, private health and improving accountability. I am sure the content of this report will be referred to by MPs, journalists and commentators for some time to come, and that we in this place have ample opportunity to raise points on its content over the months before this government—in fact, all of us—will be held to account at the 2007 federal election. I have only a few minutes to speak to this report today, so I will limit myself to just one or two points. The first category of recommendations focuses on the primary area of concern within the health system—the roles and responsibilities of governments and our need to elucidate and rationalise the funding, structural and service delivery arrangements to maximise health returns with a minimum of waste. It should be done, it is recommended, without turf wars or hissing matches or a preoccupation with historical arrangements and practices. The idea of a substantial reorganisation of the national health system is large—in fact, very large—but so are the costs of ignoring this path forward. The total health expenditure in 2004-05 is estimated to have been in excess of $87 billion. The funding mix by source is relatively stable from year to year, at 46 per cent federal, 23 per cent state and local, and 31 per cent private funding. Over the 10 years to 2004-05, health expenditure rose by an average of 8.3 per cent per year, or 5.3 per cent per year after inflation. Everyone expects this to continue and to contribute towards ever-increasing budget allocations of governments and households around the nation. Most projections envisage a doubling of government funding as a proportion of GDP over the next 40 years. I am glad that the 26,000 people over the age of 65 in my electorate of Hindmarsh are notionally benefiting from increasing health expenditure and the continuation of life which it has provided for. By the time we in this place reach our 70s and 80s, we are going to have to make some pretty challenging economies for Australia as a whole to be able to deliver world’s best practice to all who need it around the nation. We have heard, from time to time, people from all walks of life talk in favour of shaking up the mix of health funding sources and service delivery responsibilities. The Minister for Health and Ageing has spoken in favour of the federal government taking over hospitals. The South Australian premier has offered him the keys. In fact, even the federal shadow minister for health has been speaking on similar lines for some time. This is all very encouraging, but it will take real political courage when rearranging $80 billion plus of funding and spending per year—a figure which is rising. It could affect other financial landscapes and features that offer, I suppose, a nervousness with the consequential political risk. It would be a welcome change if all players, from the Productivity Commission through all levels of government and the very public whom the system is here to serve, could maintain a focus on the desired outcomes, which I have to say has not been the case over the last 10 years. Since the abolition of the Commonwealth dental scheme 10 years ago, the government has consistently stated that dental care is not a federal issue. From what we have been hearing, if there is gum disease or dental disease in the non-working population and teeth are falling out left, right and centre, the federal government are not going to lift a finger. It is much better in their view to play the silly little game that they think absolves them from the consequent suffering in the community. We hear constantly that it is the fault and the responsibility of the states. What do you say to Mrs Mazzone, a constituent in my electorate of Hindmarsh, who contacted my office last month? She is a pensioner and of very limited means. Mrs Mazzone has been on the public dental waiting list for over 2½ years. She finally received a letter recently telling her that she could go to a private dental clinic and that it would be paid for by the public scheme. When she turned up to the dentist, after having to wait 2½ years, she was told that she had chronic gum disease, that he was not a gum specialist and that she would have to go and see a gum specialist. She went back to the dental clinic, only to be informed that she now has to wait at least two years to see a gum specialist. That is another two years of waiting, during which there will be further deterioration in her teeth and her gums. So how is Mrs Mazzone’s health going to be affected—not just her gums and teeth but her ability to maintain overall health? For someone to have to have rotting gums or bleeding teeth month after month I feel is totally inhumane, and no government should pass the blame on to someone else. We have all been elected here to try to do something to help people. I am sure that, if the government are listening to this debate on this report, they will be automatically and instinctively thinking, ‘This is great: we can get a free kick against the South Australian government for not putting enough funds into dental care,’ or whatever they want to say. But, if they are thinking that, they will have proved my point that they have simply wiped their hands of health outcomes. That is evident. In seeing a woman’s pain and her suffering, as I did last month, it is just callous and ruthless to have people wiping their hands of it and saying, ‘It’s not our responsibility.’ I think we all have a moral duty to make sure that we make life better for people. If you have bad teeth and health problems with your teeth, why is it any different from when you have a broken arm and you go to a doctor to fix your broken arm? There is no difference. Pain is pain; they are both health issues. Looking at the table of recurrent health expenditure by health area and the sources of funds in the report, you will see that dental services is an area of expenditure that is far and away like no other additional area of expenditure picked up by the individual out there in the community. Over $4 billion is being spent per year, with perhaps only $250 million coming from other sources. Again bringing the attention of the House back to health outcomes and where people on very limited means are clearly unable to cover the expense of maintaining their own health, as demonstrated by people enduring ongoing decay of teeth and gums for year after year, I think the government does have a responsibility to step in and take action. It does so in other areas of health; it should with dental health as well. I am glad that the committee agrees with me on this point, as is evident in recommendation No. 3 of the report, which states: The Australian Government should supplement state and territory funding for public dental services so that reasonable access standards for appropriate services are maintained, particularly for disadvantaged groups. This should be linked to the achievement of specific service outcomes. It is idiotic not to; it is cruel and idiotic if we do not. It is immoral not to prevent suffering and it is financially idiotic to allow a person’s health to deteriorate for want of minimal care and treatment to a stage that requires much more substantial and expensive intervention. I congratulate the members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing for recognising this and having the ability to make the recommendation that is clearly contrary to the own minister’s and Prime Minister’s irresponsible position on dental care. This brings me to another chapter of the report—promoting wellness. The hospital system is the most expensive element of the health system and obviously keeping people out of hospital through preventive health measures is the way we have to go. (Time expired) 208 17:45:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 1 0 Mr JOHNSON —I am pleased to speak on the Commonwealth parliament’s report on the inquiry into health funding, entitled The blame game, tabled in the Australian parliament today by my colleague from Queensland the honourable Alex Somlyay, member for Fairfax, who is chair of the committee. At the outset let me thank him and the deputy chair, the member for Shortland, for their leadership and stewardship of this committee in the last 18 months. I took a deep interest in this committee coming from Queensland, where health was very much a political issue in the last election. It is certainly an issue in the Ryan electorate, where the Wesley Hospital is located. Apart from wearing my hat as the member for Ryan, wearing my hat as a citizen of this country I took a deep interest in the direction of this committee. I am very pleased that the findings of the inquiry were submitted today and have wide support from members of both the government and the opposition. Of course, we know that health has a very unique place in this country—it is an issue that really affects every Australian very directly. Like education, it is one of those issues that seem to exist at every election and it is certainly an issue that concerns every citizen of this country. Health is a complex matter. It is an expensive matter. It is a bureaucratic matter. It is a sensitive matter. It is overlapping and it is also cumbersome. But, at the same time, our health system is very professional. It is world class. It has amongst its practitioners very dedicated and compassionate people—people who have dedicated their lives to the health profession and the allied health profession and to serving their fellow human beings. My brother is a doctor—he is a neurosurgeon. My sister is completing her medical degree. So I am aware, as an Australian citizen, of some of the issues that they bring to my attention. It is important that the views and experiences of people who are at the coalface of the medical system—who are actually at the pointy, sharp end of the health system—are taken into account by governments in our country. The Australian health system, as I touched on, is a world-class health system. It is generally very highly regarded. It does have amongst the best practitioners in the world. They can certainly hold their heads high for their dedication, passion and supreme levels of skill. In speaking on this report, I want to refer to a couple of matters that might be of interest in particular to my constituents in the Ryan electorate. Before I go on to that, I want to say that the committee received 159 submissions, and 59 exhibits were accepted as evidence to the inquiry. The committee was resolved to conduct an inquiry into health funding back in March 2005. We received submissions from all states and territories and from groups and individuals residing in all parts of our country. Five state and territory governments made submissions—the ACT, Victoria, the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia. The committee welcomed the contributions from these governments, but I also must say that, as a Queensland based federal member, I was disappointed that the state government of Queensland—as well as New South Wales, but my particular area of interest is Queensland—regrettably, declined to provide a submission to the inquiry or to appear at any of the public hearings. There was considerable media coverage on the health area and the health portfolio in Queensland given some of the terrible incidents and stories that have been revealed in the media in the last couple of years in relation to what happened at Bundaberg Hospital. I am pleased that the member for Hinkler happens to be the chamber with me, because, as I understand it, he sat on the board of Bundaberg Hospital for some 15 years and, sadly for Bundaberg hospital, his time on that board was terminated when the Goss Labor government came to power in Queensland in 1989. There has never been any suggestion that, during the coalition years of government in Queensland, the hospital suffered from or went through any terrible periods of time with maladministration. Of course, the board should be accountable and take responsibility for the stewardship of the hospital. Certainly there has never been any suggestion of any outrageous cover-up. The structure of this report is loosely aligned around the terms of reference. The committee has developed a number of key themes from the evidence that was received from those who, in person or in writing, gave submissions. As I said, the health system is very complex and any changes to funding arrangements need to take a holistic approach because of the nature of the health system and the mutually dependent and complementary nature of different parts of the health system in delivering health services for the consumers of Australia—no less so than our education system, where there is great overlap, buck-passing, blame shifting and cost shifting, and that also seems to be the case in health. I want to focus in particular on the private sector as a key stakeholder in the health system. It is a very important stakeholder in our health system, in our health architecture, and it must continue to be so. It must interact more with the public sector because both have a very crucial role to play in providing quality care. It needs to be better integrated to take advantage of the things that it does well, with the skills and the experience that its employees bring to health delivery and health management. But, at the same time, no system or sector is perfect and it can always tie in better with the public sector. Funding for health needs to be reorientated to support a system that focuses on wellness rather than illness, on prevention rather than cure. Members of parliament from both the government and the opposition on this committee have alluded to that. I certainly very strongly support models that promote wellness rather than illness. We need to try to address the enormous cost of health in this country by trying to educate our fellow Australians to live a more healthy lifestyle and be very conscientious of their habits, in terms of how they exercise, whether they exercise and also their diet. That is very important. I am certainly happy to put my hand up as someone who is probably not as prudent in an exercise regime as I should be, compared to the days before my election to the federal parliament. It is something that is very important. Whenever I get the opportunity to visit younger Australians at schools in the Ryan electorate, I certainly take the opportunity to encourage them to take care of their health, live and eat healthily and wear their school hats in the hot Queensland sunshine, because we do not want our kids to be exposed to the sun any more than they need to be. The community’s knowledge and understanding about the Australian health system need to be improved to clarify the expectations about the probable trend towards rising private health insurance premiums, the out-of-pocket costs and the waiting times for treatment. In conclusion, I was delighted to be a part of this committee and to contribute where I was able. I touched on some of the points that colleagues have made about responsibility to aspects of the health system. Opposition members gave the example of dental health care and financial responsibility for that. At the end of the day, we live in a federation between a Commonwealth government and state governments, and that entails a division of responsibility and accountability. Hopefully, this report will address that and try to take that problem out of our healthcare system. 210 17:55:00 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP 0 0 Mrs ELLIOT —I rise also to speak on the report on the inquiry into health funding. At the outset I would like to acknowledge the work of the committee and the work of the chair, the member for Fairfax; the deputy chair, the member for Shortland; and all of the members of the committee and the secretariat as well. I would like to support the previous comments made by the deputy chair of the committee and also the member for Hindmarsh. This report is entitled The blame game. The first recommendation of the report deals specifically with this issue and focuses on this area of concern, an area of concern that so many people constantly raise, which of course is the roles and responsibilities of the levels of government and the need to specify the structures and service delivery arrangements. This is a vitally important issue and needs to be urgently addressed. For every health issue that arises, we often hear the Howard government standard response of: ‘That’s up to the states.’ That certainly is not good enough when talking about the health of all Australians. What we need is a national strategy to fix this problem. We need to have national leadership in overcoming this issue of the blame game and defining those roles and responsibilities so we can adequately address all of the health concerns of all Australians. This is certainly an issue that many people constantly raise in my electorate with me—that what they see and hear is constantly this blame game, not actually fixing the problems; particularly in my electorate, with so many elderly people whose health needs are quite extreme. They raise this constantly, wanting to see some national leadership in resolving this issue. I am also very pleased that the committee has raised the importance of dental care, another major issue in my electorate. I note that this is under recommendation 3, which states: The Australian Government should supplement state and territory funding for public dental services so that reasonable access standards for appropriate services are maintained, particularly for disadvantaged groups. This should be linked to the achievement of specific service outcomes. Dentistry is such an essential element of our nation’s health service, and I believe that all Australians should have access to affordable and timely dental care. It is a major issue to the people in my electorate of Richmond, as indeed it is to all Australians. Since the federal government scrapped the $100 million a year Commonwealth dental health scheme, so many people have had to wait years to get their teeth fixed. I am constantly approached by elderly people who cannot get their teeth fixed. They are often in extreme pain and they often cannot eat, so they are of course incredibly distressed about that situation. Some of these local seniors have been telling me that they are waiting sometimes for up to two years to have essential dental work performed. This situation is just not good enough, and it is shameful that our elderly are in such a dire predicament. Not being able to access timely and affordable dental care leads to a whole range of other medical problems such as malnutrition and many other medical conditions. This then places a greater burden on our health system because of the fact that these people cannot access affordable dental care. The report notes at paragraph 3.112 on page 72: ‘The provision of dental care in a timely manner can significantly affect a person’s quality of life and future health costs.’ It is absolutely imperative that they are able to access decent, affordable dental care. The committee rightly notes concerns in relation to the affordability of dental care, the excessive waiting list and the shortfall in trained dental health workers. It is also important that this committee has unanimously agreed that the Commonwealth needs to provide more funding to dental care. As I said, this is a major issue in my electorate, so much so that over 4,000 people have previously signed a petition for the Commonwealth to restore federal funding for dental care. I believe this recommendation in relation to dental care is a very important and significant part of this report. Indeed, it is a recognition of the failings of this current government in relation to dental care. The recommendation is a start, but it is only a start. What we need and what I will continue to fight for is a fully funded federal dental health scheme. This is what our nation needs and what Australia deserves. I note further the very important recommendations in respect of producing adequate numbers of health profession graduates to meet the projected demand as contained in recommendation 5, which relates to training doctors. That recommendation suggests: The Australian Government implement a strategy for Australia to: be self sufficient by 2021 in producing adequate numbers of health profession graduates to meet projected demand; provide the necessary funding to expand the training system to accommodate the required number of students; and consider using the AusAID budget to expand medical training to further assist developing countries. This is a need that has to be urgently addressed because we have such a shortage of doctors and health professionals right across this country. In particular, looking at the future health needs of an ageing population, this is an issue that must be resolved now because the health demands are just going to increase significantly. As I said, in my electorate there are many elderly people; in fact, 20 per cent of the population is aged over 65 years—and it is that percentage that is predicted for Australia’s overall population by 2040. So at the moment we are seeing, on the ground, the demands of an ageing population and we certainly have to get that right for the future health needs of our nation, as so many people will be entering that age bracket in the years to come. This is particularly pertinent to rural and regional areas, and I will discuss that shortly. But, as I said, the shortage of doctors and health professionals needs to be urgently addressed right throughout the country. I further note recommendation 11 in respect of developing standards for the delivery of health services in regional, rural and remote areas. It seems that for too long regional areas have been treated like second-class citizens when it comes to health care, and that is certainly what locals constantly tell me. We need a national system that will ensure that people in regional areas have access to affordable health care as well as adequate resources. We also need a federal policy to recruit and retain doctors in our rural and regional areas. Every day I hear of dire situations in so many smaller towns that have difficulties in recruiting those health professionals. There need to be so many more incentives in place to make sure that we can get trained health professionals to our regional areas. We need to provide more incentives to make sure that we have adequate services in those areas. And this is not just in remote areas; the electorate of Richmond is not that isolated. Even in areas such as Tweed Heads they have difficulty recruiting doctors and health. The recruitment of trained staff across all the health professions is a major concern and it certainly needs to be a major focus. In closing, it has been a privilege to be a part of the health and ageing committee and I would like to thank all my parliamentary colleagues for the work they have done in the course of the committee inquiry, listening to the concerns of Australians in respect of healthcare issues. I hope the recommendations in this report receive the support of the government and that we see positive changes to the provision of health services, particularly in the funding of dental services—as I said, that is a major need—as well as an increase in the recruitment and retention of healthcare professionals, especially in regional and rural areas where the need is so dire. Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned. 212 18:04:00 Main Committee adjourned at 6.04 pm 213 Questions in Writing 213 213 2706 213 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP 0 Ms Roxon asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in writing, on 28 November 2005: What sum did the Minister’s department spend during 2004-2005 on external (a) barristers and (b) solicitors (including private firms, the Australian Government Solicitor and any others). What sum did the Minister’s department spend on internal legal services. What is the Minister’s department’s projected expenditure on legal services for 2005-2006. 213 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Minister for Trade 1 Mr Truss —The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department spent $1 588 728 (excl. GST) on external legal services during 2004-2005. This sum includes expenditure on external barristers and solicitors and includes expenditure on private firms, including the Australian Government Solicitor and other firms. A breakdown of this figure is not available. The Department spent $312 780 (excl. GST) on internal legal services during 2004-2005. The Department’s actual expenditure on legal services for 2005-2006 was $2 195 268 (excl. GST), which includes both internal and external legal services. 213 213 3216 213 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 0 Mr Price asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 27 March 2006: What programs and services do the department and each agency in the Minister’s portfolio provide for Indigenous communities and individuals in the electoral division of Chifley. In respect of each program, (a) what sum is spent annually (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley and (b) how many people is it intended to assist (i) nationally and (ii) in the electoral division of Chifley. 213 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Core Department and (2) The core department does not directly provide programs or services to Indigenous communities or individuals nationally or in the electoral division of Chifley. These are provided by DHS agencies as outlined below. Child Support Agency The area of Chifley is serviced by two Indigenous Relations Officers (IROs) who actively participate in outreach activities and Indigenous Service delivery networks. CSA provides IROs to visit Dillwynia Aboriginal Women’s prison on a monthly basis. Dillwynia is in South Windsor, close to Chifley. CSA also provides bi-monthly outreach at Centrelink offices in Blacktown and St Marys and Indigenous customers are encouraged to make use of these services. On 16 May 2006, CSA jointly led the DHS cross-agency initiative at the Indigenous Job Market in Mt Druitt. A Community Information Session to be held in Chifley is planned for October 2006. Local Indigenous organisations will be invited to attend so that CSA customers have personalised access to CSA, Family Law, Centrelink, Community Justice Centre and a number of other agencies. On 28 June 2006 an Indigenous Relations Officer presented information to the Mt Druitt Indigenous Interagency Meeting which was attended by Indigenous Community Service Providers in the Mr Druitt, Blacktown and Penrith area. On 30 June 2006 the Child Support Agency, jointly with Centrelink, presented information to the Department of Community Services. The presentation was attended by Indigenous Community Service Providers in the Mt Druitt and surrounding areas. CSA spends approximately $450,000 nationally, although these funds are not solely identified as a line item in CSA budget. The spending is for Indigenous Relations Officers, Community Information Sessions, production and distribution of print materials and advertising in the Koori Mail. In addition Indigenous customers are serviced through mainstream CSA services. The total cost for the electoral division of Chifley is approximately $50,000. and (ii) The above programs, as well as other region specific programs in other areas in Australia, are intended to provide assistance to the entire Indigenous customer segment. CRS Australia CRS Australia provides vocational rehabilitation services and programs to Indigenous communities and individuals in the electorate of Chifley. In 2004/05 CRS Australia spent approximately $2.6 million to provide vocational rehabilitation services to Indigenous clients nationally. In 2004/05 CRS Australia spent approximately $80,000 to provide vocational rehabilitation services to Indigenous clients in the electorate of Chifley. In 2004/05 CRS Australia assisted 479 Indigenous clients nationally. In 2004/05 CRS Australia assisted 14 Indigenous clients in the electorate of Chifley. Centrelink Services provided by Centrelink include: Three Customer Service Centres located at Blacktown, Mount Druitt and St Marys. An Indigenous Service Unit located at the Mount Druitt office. Centrelink delivers services and programs on behalf of Australian Government policy departments. Under this arrangement the policy department, not Centrelink, fund specific services or programs for Indigenous customers in the electorate of Chifley. Centrelink programs provide assistance to the entire Indigenous customer segment. Medicare Australia Medicare Australia has an office located in Blacktown and claiming facilities in Mount Druitt. Medicare Australia’s public access telephone line provides national support for Medicare programs to its customers and health service providers. To ensure better access to Medicare programs by Indigenous Australians, Medicare Australia actively promotes the following special arrangements: - The Indigenous Access Network provides a dedicated support and outreach service to Indigenous people and their communities across Australia to help with enrolments and other Medicare related issues. - A freecall 1800 telephone service to deal exclusively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients. The 1800 service operates from each of our State Headquarters and is supported by Medicare Liaison Officers for Indigenous Access who are culturally aware of the flexibility often required to deal with the special conditions that may affect Indigenous people. Medicare Australia is unable to identify the Indigenous people utilising Government health programs as it is not compulsory to identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent on a Medicare registration form. Nationally, $10,501,872,712 and $5,423,588,311 is spent annually on Medicare benefits and PBS respectively. In the electoral Division of Chifley*, $83,565,374 and $36,587,363 is spent annually on Medicare benefits and PBS respectively. Nationally, Medicare Australia programs are intended to assist all eligible residents of Australia. Over 150,000 people in the electorate Division of Chifley. * Medicare Australia does not collect data at the electorate level. The statistics provided are based on postcodes that appear within the electorate of Chifley and are therefore approximate as some postcodes span more than one electorate. Australian Hearing Australian Hearing provides a monthly service from the Daruk Aboriginal Medical Service at Mt Druitt. Services include hearing testing, liaison services and community education. The total amount spent nationally on the Australian Hearing Specialist Program for Indigenous Australians (AHSPIA) outreach visiting services from 1 July 2005 to 31 March 2006 was $1.4 million The total amount spent on services at Mt Druitt for that period was $21, 963. A total of 1,861 clients were seen nationally from 1 July 2005 to 31 March 2006 through the AHSPIA Program A total of 36 clients were seen during that period at Mt Druitt. Health Services Australia Health Services Australia does not provide any programs or services to Indigenous communities or individuals in the electoral division of Chifley. Health Services Australia does not provide any program or services nationally that are specifically targeted at Indigenous communities. To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 19 hours and 53 minutes at an estimated cost of $1,116. 215 215 3722 215 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 19 June 2006: Has he seen media reports reporting that Federal National Party Members of Parliament are pushing the Government to mandate the use of ethanol in fuel? Does he support the mandating of ethanol; if so, what are those details; if not, why not. 215 Vaile, Mark, MP SU5 Lyne NATS Minister for Transport and Regional Services 1 Mr Vaile —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The comments raised are those made by private members. As this is not a matter for the trade portfolio, I am not obliged to comment. 216 216 3787 216 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 0 Ms Grierson asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 8 August 2006: For the period from 2005 to the present, how many recipients of Youth Allowance has Centrelink found to be in breach of their benefit conditions for receiving cash-in-hand payments, or underdeclaring income. In each case referred to in part (1), has Centrelink provided details of the employer to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) for investigation; if not, why not; if so, how many employers have been referred to DEWR. Has Centrelink provided details of the employers referred to in part (2) to the Australian Tax Office (ATO); if not, why not; if so, how many have been referred to the ATO. 216 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: From 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006, Centrelink review activity of Youth Allowance Payments for earnings/employment related activity, specifically under declared and cash-in-hand earning, resulted in 19,494 reductions in payment including 10,986 (9.3 per cent) cancellations. There is no arrangement in place for Centrelink to make referrals to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations. Centrelink does refer cases to the Australian Taxation Office where there is a suspicion that an employer or an individual may have defrauded the Australian Taxation Office. Statistics regarding the number of cases referred to the Australian Taxation Office are not kept by Centrelink. To prepare this answer it has taken 4 hours and 51 minutes at an estimated cost of $264. 216 216 3952 216 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 16 August 2006: For each (a) week and (b) month since January 2004, how many calls have Centrelink call centres (i) answered and (ii) not answered. For each (a) week and (b) month since January 2004, what has been the average length of time that Centrelink customers have waited before their call is answered. Since January 2004, which day recorded the (a) highest and (b) lowest number of unanswered calls and, in each case, for what reason. What are the main reasons that calls to Centrelink may not be answered. How many employees work at Centrelink call centres. What is the average annual rate of pay for a full-time Centrelink call centre employee. How many calls are Centrelink call centre employees expected to answer each (a) hour, (b) day (c) week, (d) month and (e) year. What breaks are Centrelink call centre employees entitled to each day. For each month since January 2004, how many Centrelink call centre employees have been dismissed against their wishes. What have been the main reasons for the dismissals referred to in part (9). For each month since January 2004, how many Centrelink call centre employees have resigned voluntarily. How many Centrelink call centre employees are employed under Australian Workplace Agreements. For each (a) week and (b) month since January 2004, how many Centrelink call centre employees have reported an incident of verbal abuse. In respect of verbal abuse reported by a call centre employee, what is Centrelink’s standard response. What is the average number of calls made each day to a Centrelink call centre that are (a) monitored by a supervisor and/or (b) recorded. What is the average length of time that a recorded conversation is kept by Centrelink before being discarded. Have conversations recorded for training purposes ever been used for (a) investigating an incident of verbal abuse or (b) any other purpose. 217 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2) The following indicates Calls answered and average wait times for customers by week: Week from Week to Calls Answered Unmet Demand (weekly) Average wait (in seconds) 05/01/2004 09/01/2004 461,100 43,998 171 12/01/2004 16/01/2004 456,707 9,005 98 19/01/2004 23/01/2004 456,963 4,072 47 26/01/2004* 30/01/2004 403,804 38,919 220 02/02/2004 06/02/2004 441,568 52,374 242 09/02/2004 13/02/2004 454,956 24,419 185 16/02/2004 20/02/2004 436,352 13,642 119 23/02/2004 27/02/2004 462,084 3,920 47 01/03/2004 05/03/2004 436,994 4,464 59 08/03/2004 12/03/2004 433,480 5,470 136 15/03/2004 19/03/2004 438,580 3,999 75 22/03/2004 26/03/2004 444,236 3,605 37 29/03/2004 02/04/2004 440,661 4,009 54 05/04/2004* 09/04/2004 368,034 6,715 81 12/04/2004* 16/04/2004 301,152 10,573 80 19/04/2004 23/04/2004 441,852 2,854 38 26/04/2004* 30/04/2004 288,738 10,615 67 03/05/2004 07/05/2004 301,445 5,011 23 10/05/2004 14/05/2004 442,568 3,717 25 17/05/2004 21/05/2004 440,410 5,685 88 24/05/2004 28/05/2004 429,054 10,712 121 31/05/2004 04/06/2004 448,518 46,228 196 07/06/2004 11/06/2004 454,908 67,417 217 14/06/2004* 18/06/2004 462,880 189,684 324 21/06/2004 25/06/2004 535,100 68,914 219 28/06/2004 02/07/2004 519,470 128,869 317 05/07/2004 09/07/2004 501,671 60,247 227 12/07/2004 16/07/2004 517,898 29,921 154 19/07/2004 23/07/2004 494,329 6,815 90 26/07/2004 30/07/2004 517,156 5,057 64 02/08/2004 06/08/2004 486,169 6,204 79 09/08/2004 13/08/2004 458,327 10,114 134 16/08/2004 20/08/2004 443,468 5,446 101 23/08/2004 27/08/2004 454,704 3,835 58 30/08/2004 03/09/2004 539,905 20,341 232 06/09/2004 10/09/2004 563,551 134,219 323 13/09/2004 17/09/2004 532,820 222,875 314 20/09/2004 24/09/2004 543,703 120,273 307 27/09/2004 01/10/2004 540,661 25,829 174 04/10/2004 08/10/2004 557,952 24,103 162 11/10/2004 15/10/2004 442,137 6,608 68 18/10/2004 22/10/2004 422,391 16,947 165 25/10/2004 29/10/2004 413,484 8,149 87 01/11/2004 05/11/2004 396,337 17,469 188 08/11/2004 12/11/2004 405,641 15,044 197 15/11/2004 19/11/2004 432,286 20,539 165 22/11/2004 26/11/2004 424,791 12,972 93 29/11/2004 03/12/2004 426,636 40,482 195 06/12/2004 10/12/2004 325,309 68,199 217 13/12/2004 17/12/2004 331,496 81,747 217 20/12/2004 24/12/2004 424,020 72,005 195 27/12/2004* 31/12/2004 207,706 56,737 319 03/01/2005* 07/01/2005 200,886 114,091 333 10/01/2005 14/01/2005 431,180 65,372 222 17/01/2005 21/01/2005 451,518 40,544 182 24/01/2005* 28/01/2005 384,991 88,274 264 31/01/2005 04/02/2005 449,512 88,486 265 07/02/2005 11/02/2005 448,832 84,197 238 14/02/2005 18/02/2005 332,540 43,418 192 21/02/2005 25/02/2005 434,102 55,473 210 28/02/2005 04/03/2005 435,776 33,794 180 07/03/2005 11/03/2005 408,115 80,477 255 14/03/2005 18/03/2005 368,861 55,305 241 21/03/2005 25/03/2005 361,456 59,631 240 28/03/2005* 01/04/2005 328,931 93,956 306 04/04/2005 08/04/2005 403,248 71,400 244 11/04/2005 15/04/2005 396,339 35,654 172 18/04/2005 22/04/2005 411,155 40,626 183 25/04/2005* 29/04/2005 339,044 30,495 186 02/05/2005 06/05/2005 420,305 16,640 114 09/05/2005 13/05/2005 439,465 6,585 62 16/05/2005 20/05/2005 427,655 27,329 145 23/05/2005 27/05/2005 433,765 11,874 82 30/05/2005 03/06/2005 471,552 38,893 140 06/06/2005 10/06/2005 441,571 94,247 231 13/06/2005* 17/06/2005 369,678 180,174 313 20/06/2005 24/06/2005 455,848 139,113 275 27/06/2005 01/07/2005 472,001 170,595 277 04/07/2005 08/07/2005 462,211 193,215 278 11/07/2005 15/07/2005 509,958 126,238 228 18/07/2005 22/07/2005 524,686 64,136 159 25/07/2005 29/07/2005 529,223 127,330 219 01/08/2005 05/08/2005 503,093 90,052 186 08/08/2005 12/08/2005 515,282 34,955 134 15/08/2005 19/08/2005 494,656 8,123 54 22/08/2005 26/08/2005 483,649 13,803 67 29/08/2005 02/09/2005 471,951 8,376 47 05/09/2005 09/09/2005 503,909 16,533 80 12/09/2005 16/09/2005 491,153 13,655 83 19/09/2005 23/09/2005 483,157 13,352 76 26/09/2005 30/09/2005 410,190 52,251 205 03/10/2005 07/10/2005 416,192 37,479 160 10/10/2005 14/10/2005 447,878 18,442 109 17/10/2005 21/10/2005 440,622 14,882 85 24/10/2005 28/10/2005 426,805 12,001 71 31/10/2005 04/11/2005 403,102 14,640 98 07/11/2005 11/11/2005 413,268 20,351 101 14/11/2005 18/11/2005 438,709 27,167 119 21/11/2005 25/11/2005 429,337 38,501 155 28/11/2005 02/12/2005 449,887 33,909 148 05/12/2005 09/12/2005 450,855 29,163 137 12/12/2005 16/12/2005 454,456 48,787 187 19/12/2005 23/12/2005 466,653 58,563 201 26/12/2005* 30/12/2005 216,488 50,332 198 02/01/2006* 06/01/2006 393,669 78,608 247 09/01/2006 13/01/2006 498,741 25,399 138 16/01/2006 20/01/2006 484,968 16,276 108 23/01/2006* 27/01/2006 420,528 45,421 182 30/01/2006 03/02/2006 481,626 86,339 219 06/02/2006 10/02/2006 466,003 87,314 235 13/02/2006 17/02/2006 461,788 50,978 181 20/02/2006 24/02/2006 426,827 95,742 241 27/02/2006 03/03/2006 421,632 96,451 238 06/03/2006** 10/03/2006 13/03/2006 17/03/2006 397,514 71,288 223 20/03/2006 24/03/2006 444,361 62,763 202 27/03/2006 31/03/2006 418,136 69,532 199 03/04/2006 07/04/2006 436,679 55,627 186 10/04/2006* 14/04/2006 339,301 61,253 222 17/04/2006* 21/04/2006 344,756 97,759 269 24/04/2006* 28/04/2006 350,411 69,976 208 01/05/2006 05/05/2006 434,987 40,851 147 08/05/2006 12/05/2006 433,909 31,301 104 15/05/2006 19/05/2006 467,528 31,368 149 22/05/2006 26/05/2006 439,335 34,774 136 29/05/2006 02/06/2006 454,179 13,332 87 05/06/2006 09/06/2006 432,958 26,525 144 12/06/2006* 16/06/2006 368,453 79,979 277 19/06/2006 23/06/2006 453,897 61,470 177 26/06/2006 30/06/2006 560,416 28,290 117 03/07/2006 07/07/2006 513,906 70,141 149 10/07/2006 14/07/2006 587,219 38,177 101 17/07/2006 21/07/2006 616,317 51,722 147 24/07/2006 28/07/2006 639,941 45,651 141 31/07/2006 04/08/2006 592,489 17,288 67 07/08/2006 11/08/2006 552,535 9,422 47 * indicates the weeks that include a National Public Holiday. The holidays are as follows: Australia Day Good Friday Easter Monday Anzac Day Queens Birthday Christmas and Boxing Day New Years Day ** 6/3/06 – 10/3/06 - Please note: Due to a Computer Telephony Integration (CTI) outage, Telstra were unable to supply data for Monday 6 March 2006.   The following indicates Calls answered and average wait times for customers by month: Month From Month To Calls Answered Unmet Demand (weekly) Average wait (in seconds) 01/01/2004 31/01/2004 1,819,532 95,994 139 01/02/2004 29/02/2004 1,794,960 94,355 147 01/03/2004 31/03/2004 2,020,606 17,538 73 01/04/2004 30/04/2004 1,573,121 30,757 64 01/05/2004 31/05/2004 1,710,021 25,125 79 01/06/2004 30/06/2004 2,143,695 372,243 246 01/07/2004 31/07/2004 2,211,691 102,040 152 01/08/2004 31/08/2004 2,061,485 25,599 113 01/09/2004 30/09/2004 2,413,174 503,196 274 01/10/2004 31/10/2004 1,958,631 55,807 122 01/11/2004 30/11/2004 1,851,916 66,024 164 01/12/2004 31/12/2004 1,522,306 278,688 221 01/01/2005 31/01/2005 1,575,492 308,281 239 01/02/2005 28/02/2005 1,662,552 271,574 223 01/03/2005 31/03/2005 1,729,148 323,163 244 01/04/2005 30/04/2005 1,620,715 178,175 200 01/05/2005 31/05/2005 1,936,983 62,428 102 01/06/2005 30/06/2005 1,913,227 623,022 254 01/07/2005 31/07/2005 2,108,866 510,919 224 01/08/2005 31/08/2005 2,298,479 155,309 102 01/09/2005 30/09/2005 2,058,561 95,791 102 01/10/2005 31/10/2005 1,830,659 82,804 106 01/11/2005 30/11/2005 1,874,764 100,659 126 01/12/2005 31/12/2005 1,748,829 186,845 172 01/01/2006 31/01/2006 2,011,068 165,704 171 01/02/2006 28/02/2006 1,810,139 320,373 220 01/03/2006 31/03/2006 1,834,687 306,570 218 01/04/2006 30/04/2006 1,471,147 284,615 219 01/05/2006 31/05/2006 2,067,786 151,626 129 01/06/2006 30/06/2006 1,962,065 196,264 163 01/07/2006 31/07/2006 2,396,907 205,691 133 Glossary of terms. Calls answered – number of calls answered by Customer Service Advisors. Unmet Demand (weekly) – the number of callers unable to successfully enter Centrelink’s Interactive Voice Response Unit (IVR) during the week. Interactive Voice Response Unit (IVR) – The entry point to Centrelink’s call centre network. Average wait – The average time a caller waits (after leaving the IVR) before being answered by a customer service advisor.   The highest amount of calls unanswered on any day was 73,437. This was on Monday 4 July 2005. The reasons for this were: This is a peak period for Centrelink Call; and The Telstra network experienced technical problems. The following days had no unmet demand as demand was not high. 08/01/2004 26/03/2004 23/04/2004 21/05/2004 14/01/2004 30/03/2004 26/04/2004 27/05/2004 15/01/2004 31/03/2004 29/04/2004 21/07/2004 01/03/2004 01/04/2004 30/04/2004 18/08/2004 11/03/2004 08/04/2004 06/05/2004 20/08/2004 16/03/2004 14/04/2004 07/05/2004 23/08/2004 19/03/2004 15/04/2004 10/05/2004 24/08/2004 22/03/2004 16/04/2004 11/05/2004 25/08/2004 24/03/2004 21/04/2004 13/05/2004 26/08/2004 25/03/2004 22/04/2004 20/05/2004   The main reasons that calls may not be answered are: Busy Periods. Increase in call demand due to: statements in the media; technical issues; public holidays; and new initiatives As at 15 August 2006, there was a total of 4,843 employees in the Centrelink Call Network. The average annual rate of pay for a full-time employee in the Centrelink Call Network is $48,866. Centrelink Call employees do not have set targets for the amount of calls that they answer. Centrelink Call staff are provided with the following breaks: A meal break of between 30 and 60 minutes is built into each Call Centre employee’s regular pattern of attendance for any days that they are due to work more than five hours. If an employee has been performing telephone/screen based work for 60 minutes continuously, and is scheduled to perform that work for at least a further 15 minutes, they may take up to five minutes away from telephone/screen based work to undertake other work-related activities. Call Centre employees are provided with a break of 15 minutes in the morning and, if scheduled to work more than 7 hours 15 minutes in a day, a second break of 15 minutes in the afternoon. The following indicates the number of staff who have been dismissed. 2004 2005 2006 January 1 6 3 February 2 5 8 March 6 1 4 April 4 3 9 May 6 5 7 June 3 4 10 July 5 2 August 4 3 September 3 8 October 2 3 November 0 2 December 2 3 The main reasons for the above dismissals were: Unsatisfactory performance Non performance of duties Physical or mental incapacity Conditions of Engagement not met – employee does not satisfactorily pass their medical assessment or police check or probationary period. Breach of the Code of Conduct The following indicates the number of staff who have resigned. 2004 2005 2006 January 39 22 47 February 28 32 47 March 45 28 56 April 30 41 44 May 32 48 63 June 19 50 78 July 36 60 August 25 42 September 25 66 October 35 36 November 23 35 December 26 34 As of 30 June 2006 Centrelink had thirty-three Call Centre employees who are employed under Australian Workplace Agreements. (a) The following indicates the incidences of verbal abuse in Centrelink Call Centres by week: Week from Week from Week from 03/01/2004 1 08/01/2005 3 07/01/2006 6 10/01/2004 6 15/01/2005 5 14/01/2006 6 17/01/2004 10 22/01/2005 11 21/01/2006 4 24/01/2004 9 29/01/2005 6 28/01/2006 4 31/01/2004 5 05/02/2005 8 04/02/2006 6 07/02/2004 8 12/02/2005 7 11/02/2006 4 14/02/2004 9 19/02/2005 3 18/02/2006 4 21/02/2004 5 26/02/2005 4 25/02/2006 6 28/02/2004 0 05/03/2005 5 04/03/2006 5 06/03/2004 1 12/03/2005 6 11/03/2006 5 13/03/2004 5 19/03/2005 4 18/03/2006 4 20/03/2004 3 26/03/2005 3 25/03/2006 9 27/03/2004 7 02/04/2005 6 01/04/2006 8 03/04/2004 4 09/04/2005 5 08/04/2006 9 10/04/2004 2 16/04/2005 6 15/04/2006 6 17/04/2004 3 23/04/2005 7 22/04/2006 3 24/04/2006 5 30/04/2005 3 29/04/2006 6 01/05/2004 3 07/05/2005 2 06/05/2006 2 08/05/2004 5 14/05/2005 4 13/05/2006 7 15/05/2004 9 21/05/2005 8 20/05/2006 1 22/05/2004 7 28/05/2005 5 27/05/2006 7 29/05/2004 2 04/06/2005 3 03/06/2006 4 05/06/2004 4 11/06/2005 9 10/06/2006 12 12/06/2004 6 18/06/2005 2 17/06/2006 4 19/06/2004 5 25/06/2005 3 24/06/2006 1 26/06/2004 1 02/07/2005 1 01/07/2006 8 03/07/2004 3 09/07/2005 4 08/07/2006 10 10/07/2004 9 16/07/2005 7 15/07/2006 7 17/07/2004 4 23/07/2005 5 22/07/2006 9 24/07/2004 5 30/07/2005 9 29/07/2006 7 31/07/2004 7 06/08/2005 3 07/08/2004 6 13/08/2005 5 14/08/2004 4 20/08/2005 4 21/08/2004 6 27/08/2005 4 28/08/2004 4 03/09/2005 6 04/09/2004 6 10/09/2005 4 11/09/2004 9 17/09/2005 2 18/09/2004 6 24/09/2005 6 25/09/2004 6 01/10/2005 7 02/10/2004 6 08/10/2005 4 09/10/2004 10 15/10/2005 3 16/10/2004 9 22/10/2005 8 23/10/2004 9 29/10/2005 4 30/10/2004 5 05/11/2005 7 06/11/2004 8 12/11/2005 1 13/11/2004 11 29/11/2005 3 20/11/2004 7 26/11/2005 3 27/11/2004 4 03/12/2005 3 04/12/2004 7 10/12/2005 4 11/12/2004 10 17/12/2005 4 18/12/2004 3 24/12/2005 8 25/12/2004 8 31/12/2005 1 30/12/2004 2                           If a Call Centre employee reports an incident of Verbal Abuse the following steps are implemented: Report the incident on a Report of Customer Aggression. The employee/employees involved will be offered a break. The team leader will consult with the employee. Counselling or further referrals may be offered. (a)   The number of calls listened to by a supervisor can vary depending on the experience of the employee. (b)   Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. To prepare this answer it has taken 69 hours and 27 minutes at an estimated cost of $3,476. 224 224 3972 224 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP 0 Mr Laurie Ferguson asked the Minister for Education, Science and Training, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What guidelines have been provided to those Federal and State/Territory officials responsible for vocational training and occupational licensing to facilitate implementation of the February 2006 COAG decision that there be full mutual recognition of skills qualifications across Australia in all licensed occupations by 31 December 2008. 225 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Minister for Education, Science and Training and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women’s Issues 1 Ms Julie Bishop —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Officials are guided by the terms of the COAG Communiqué. 225 225 4006 225 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 4 September 2006: How many pensioners in the federal electorate of Hunter have had their pensions (a) cancelled, or (b) reduced, as a result of Centrelink’s most recent assets test review. What is the average length of time taken by Centrelink to cancel pensions following an assets test review. How many pensioners in the federal electorate of Hunter have (a) appealed the outcome of the most recent Centrelink assets test and (b) had their pensions (i) fully, or (ii) partly, restored. 225 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The detailed information required to answer the question is not readily available. To obtain this information would be highly resource intensive and I cannot justify the level of expenditure that would be required to obtain it. To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 1 hour and 20 minutes at an estimated cost of $85. 225 225 4007 225 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 4 September 2006: How many people in the federal electorate of Hunter received (a) the Age Pension, (b) Youth Allowance or (c) Newstart Allowance in (i) 2003-04, (ii) 2004-05 and (iii) 2005-06. 225 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The number of customers receiving Age Pension, Youth Allowance and Newstart Allowance for the electorate of Hunter is as follows: Year Number of Customers in receipt of Age Pension Number of Customers in receipt of Youth Allowance Number of Customers in receipt of Newstart Allowance 2003-04 124441 22601 38001* 2004-05 127232 22412 35142 2005-06 127223 21283 33313 1 Data Source: Data provided by Centrelink Data Services Branch and extracted using SAS, point in time data dated 25 June 2004. 2 Data Source: Electorate file provided by Centrelink Data Services (1 July 2005 file on DHS website) 3 Data Source: Data provided by Centrelink Data Services Branch and extracted using SAS, point in time data dated 30 June 2006. * The 2003-04 Newstart Allowance figure cannot be compared with other years, as this was derived using business rules in place at that time which were slightly different from business rules used subsequently. To prepare this answer it has taken 13 hours and 30 minutes at an estimated cost of $691. 226 226 4008 226 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 0 Mr Fitzgibbon asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 4 September 2006: How many people in the federal electorate of Hunter received (a) Carers Allowance, (b) Carers Payments or (c) Disability Support Pension in (i) 2003-04, (ii) 2004-05 and (iii) 2005-06. 226 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The number of customers receiving Carer Allowance, Carer Payment and Disability Support Pension for the electorate of Hunter is as follows: Year Number of Customers in receipt of Carer Allowance Number of Customers in receipt of Carer Payment Number of Customers in receipt of Disability Support Pension 2003-04 26961 7951 62321 2004-05 30822 9062 64222 2005-06 33173 10343 66073 1 Data Source: Data provided by Centrelink Data Services Branch and extracted using SAS, point in time data dated 25 June 2004. 2 Data Source: Electorate file provided by Centrelink Data Services (1 July 2005 file on DHS website) 3 Data Source: Data provided by Centrelink Data Services Branch and extracted using SAS, point in time data dated 30 June 2006. To prepare this answer it has taken 13 hours and 30 minutes at an estimated cost of $691. 226 226 4047 226 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 4 June 2006: What was the cost of the contract awarded to KPMG to develop the business case study for the Smartcard/Access Card. Is KPMG engaged in any ongoing work in respect of the introduction of Smartcard/Access Card; if so, what is the (a) nature, and (b) cost, of that work. Does KPMG have any other contracts with the Department of Human Services, or with agencies within the Human Services portfolio; if so, what is the cost of the contracts. 226 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The value of the work undertaken by KPMG was $1.944 million. KPMG have been engaged to provide a program monitoring and assurance service for the access card program. The KPMG first deliverable is due by November 2006 at a cost not to exceed $250,000 excluding GST. The Department of Human Services does not have any other contracts with KPMG. Refer to the answer to Question on Notice number 4065 for details of KPMG contracts with other agencies within the Human Services portfolio. To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 3 hours and 30 minutes at an estimated cost of $214. 227 227 4062 227 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts have been awarded to KPMG by departments or agencies within the Minister’s portfolio for the financial years (a)2004-05, (b) 2005-06 and (c) 2006-07. 227 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - $94,362.38 for internal audit and consultancy services. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation - $10,500 for the development of a new delegations schedule. Land and Water Australia - $19,750 for International Financial Reporting Standards audit, facilitation of a risk assessment, preparation of the 2004 annual financial reports, the internal audit plan and attendance at Audit Committee. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry - $119,322.50 for internal audit and consultancy services. Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation -                 $40,000 for internal audit services. Land and Water Australia - $21,626 for a review of credit cards and travel arrangements, assistance with the financial statements, preparation of the internal plan and attendance at Audit Committee. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry -              $176,171.98 for internal audit and consultancy services. Land and Water Australia - $15,900 for Review of Information Communications Technology Strategic Plan and Information Technology Security Plan, Quality Assurance of Financial Statements and Audit Committee Attendance. 227 227 4065 227 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 4 September 2006: What contracts have been awarded to KPMG by departments or agencies within the Minister’s portfolio for the financial years (a) 2004-05, (b) 2005-06 and (c) 2006-07. What is the cost of each contract identified in Part (1). 227 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Core Department Nil. KPMG in 2005-06 prepared the business case for the Access Card.The contract was made with Kaz Technologies, who sub-contracted the work to KPMG. KPMG provided all the services, and were paid directly by DHS. One contract was awarded to KPMG in 2006-07 for program monitoring and assurance services to the Access Card. Not applicable. $1,944,200 $250,000 Child Support Agency Nil. Two contracts were awarded for the period 6 April 2006 to 30 November 2008 to provide a licence for CSA’s use of the FBT Simplifier software package to track FBT implications of salary sacrificing packages offered to CSA staff and training in the use of the program. Nil. Costs of the contract identified in Part (1) is as follows: Not applicable. Software Licence $1,644; Training $2,010. Not applicable. CRS Australia Nil. Nil. Nil. Not applicable. Centrelink The following contracts have been awarded to KPMG by Centrelink: Financial Year (1) Contracts (2) Cost (a) 2004-05 Internal Audit Services $350 Internal Audit Services $28,000 Internal Audit Services $38,192 Internal Audit Services $45,892 Internal Audit Services $30,800 Internal Audit Services $24,024 Internal Audit Services $8,800 Internal Audit Services $7,370 Internal Audit Services $32,648 Internal Audit Services $46,200 (b) 2005-06 Internal Audit Services $50,600 Internal Audit Services $58,000 Internal Audit Services $8,470 Internal Audit Services $7,700 Internal Audit Services $87,000 Internal Audit Services $87,000 Internal Audit Services $100,100 Internal Audit Services $362,500 Internal Audit Services $46,200 Internal Audit Services $6,160 Internal Audit Services $15,400 Internal Audit Services $3,080 Internal Audit Services $23,100 Internal Audit Services $89,100 (c) 2006-07 Internal Audit Services $40,500 Internal Audit Services $23,100 Medicare Australia The Health Insurance Commission awarded one contract to KPMG in 2004-05. Nil. Nil. $21,780. Australian Hearing Nil. Nil. Nil. Not applicable Health Services Australia Nil. Nil. Nil. Not applicable. To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 13 hours and 28 minutes at an estimated cost of $778. 229 229 4460 229 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, what was the total cost of (a) gardening and (b) indoor plants for the Minister’s department and agencies. 229 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Minister for Defence 1 Dr Nelson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The information sought in the honourable member’s question is not readily available. To collect and assemble such information solely for the purpose of answering the question would be a major task, and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure and effort that would be required. 229 229 4500 229 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 14 September 2006: For each financial year since 1 July 2000, how many sexual harassment claims have been reported in the Minister’s department and agencies. 229 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service 1 Mr Andrews —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) did not exist prior to November 2001. There have been no formal sexual harassment claims reported in DEWR in each financial year since November 2001. 229 229 4595 229 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, in writing, on 14 September 2006: At 12 September 2006, what office space rented by the Minister’s department was vacant. In respect of vacant office identified in Part (1) from what date has it been vacant. how long will it remain vacant. what is the monthly rental cost, and how long will the department continue to pay rental. 230 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources 1 Mr Ian Macfarlane —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 12 September the Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources had no vacant office space. Not Applicable. 230 230 4682 230 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 14 September 2006: Further to his response to question No. 3641, Part (5) (Hansard, 15 August 2006, page 98), can he confirm whether it is the Government’s intention that private businesses will use Smartcard infrastructure; if so, (a) which types of businesses and (b) may they do so for profit. 230 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Individuals will be required to present their access card when gaining access to government funded services and benefits at a pharmacy or doctor. Further to this, as identified in his speech to the National Press Club on 8 November 2006, opportunities will be further explored for the card whereby the individual can use their card to store voluntary personal information for use in non-government applications. Where the individual uses their access card to store voluntary non-government information for access to non-government benefits and services, this will be a matter for the individual. To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 2 hours at an estimated cost of $126. 230 230 4683 230 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 0 Mr Kelvin Thomson asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 14 September 2006: Further to his response to question No. 3641, Part (6); (a) has he received such advice from the Australian Tax Office (ATO); (b) is he aware of advice given by Deputy Commissioner for Taxation, Mr Michael Monaghan, at the Ausert Security Conference on 23 May 2006, that as more is done “…to make it harder to create an identity, then inevitably identity theft will increase” and “Identity crime is becoming more organised and more networked”; if so, (i) will he, the Smartcard Taskforce and the Consumer and Privacy Taskforce seek detailed advice from the ATO on this issue; (ii) will he, the Smartcard Taskforce and the Consumer and Privacy taskforce seek detailed advice from the Australian Federal Police on this issue; (iii) will he, the Smartcard Taskforce and the Consumer and Privacy taskforce seek detailed advice from other countries that have high-value single identity instruments; and (iv) will he publicly release all such advice as it becomes available. 230 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I have established the Access Card Consumer and Privacy Taskforce, chaired by Professor Alan Fels AO, to report on consumer and privacy issues arising from the Australian Government’s introduction of a new health and social services Access Card. The Taskforce has released Report Number 1 and the Government has released its Response to the Report. The Taskforce Report is informed by the views of 120 representative groups including the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Federal Police, and over 100 public submissions, most of which have been authorised for inclusion on the Taskforce website (www.humanservices.gov.au/access/consumer_privacy_taskforce.htm). The Consumer and Privacy Taskforce will continue to consult on the design and development of the Access Card. The Taskforce has also undertaken considerable research internationally to inform its advice to Government. The Office of Access Card has established a strong governance framework, including the Secretaries Group on the Access Card, the Deputy Secretaries Group on the Access Card, the Access Card Steering Committee and a range of specialist cross government working groups. The ATO and AFP actively participate in a number of these groups. To prepare this answer it has taken approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes at an estimated cost of $146. 231 231 4690 231 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP 0 Ms Gillard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 9 October 2006: How many effective full time positions existed in each Australia Post store located in the postcode area (a) 3024, (b) 3026, (c) 3028, (d) 3029, (e) 3030, (f) 3211, (g) 3335, (h) 3337, (i) 3338, (j) 3340 and (k) 3427 at (i) 1 July 2005, (ii) 1 February 2006, and (iii) 1 September 2006. 231 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question based on information provided by Australia Post: Australia Post has advised that the following table shows the number of full time positions at Australia Post corporate outlets in specified postcode areas (a) to (k) at (i) 1 July 2005, (ii) 1 February 2006 and (iii) 1 September 2006. Australia Post also advised that employment arrangements at Licensed Post Offices (LPOs) and Franchised PostShops (FPs) are a matter for individual Licensees/Franchisees. Postcode Area Postal Outlets in Postcode Area Full Time positions at Corporate Outlets at:(i) 1 July 2005 (ii) 1 Feb 2006 (iii) 1 Sept 2006 (a) 3024 - - - - (b) 3026 - - - - (c) 3028 Altona Meadows LPO Laverton LPO - - - (d) 3029 Hoppers Crossing LPO - - - (e) 3030 Werribee Post Shop Werribee Plaza Post Shop Point Cook LPO 4 6 - 4 6 - 4 6 - (f) 3211 Little River LPO - - - (g) 3335 - - - - (h) 3337 Melton Post Shop Melton West LPO 3 - 3 - 3 - (i) 3338 Melton South LPO - - - (j) 3340 Bacchus Marsh Village FP - - - (k) 3427 Diggers Rest LPO - - -   232 232 4711 232 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 0 Mr Albanese asked the Minister for Community Services, in writing, on 9 October 2006: Will he explain why SAAP agencies in New South Wales (NSW) received no extra core funding from the Commonwealth Government in the negotiation of the 5-year Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) V agreement despite the Government-commissioned evaluation of the program indicating that an increase of 15 percent base funding was required to “sustain service viability”, necessary simply to maintain the level of operation of the system, and a 40 percent increase was required to meet unmet demand (Erebus Consulting, 2004, pages 8-9). Will he explain why NSW SAAP agencies targeting single homeless women have a daily request for accommodation turn-away rate of 80 percent and what is being done to increase the capacity of accommodation and support agencies to meet the needs of these vulnerable women (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2006, page 69). Will he explain why two out of every three children needing accommodation are turned away from the SAAP on an average day and what is being done to increase the capacity of agencies to respond to the plight of the nation’s homeless children (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2006, page 61). 232 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Parkes NATS Minister for Community Services 1 Mr John Cobb —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The information sought has been covered in the answer to House of Representatives Question on Notice No 3580, asked by Mr Albanese on 25 May 2006. 232 232 4741 232 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 0 Mr Gibbons asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 10 October 2006: Is the Minister aware of the attempts made by Castlemaine District Radio Inc. to gain access to a Low Powered Open Narrowcasting Licence in the Castlemaine area. Is the Minister aware of claims by the Castlemaine Community Radio Inc. and subsequent investigation by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, that Low Powered Open Narrowcasting Licence frequencies allocated within the Castlemaine district may not have been used for several months. Could the Minister advise the outcomes of enquiries made by the Australian Communications and Media Authority to date, and the likely timeliness for the conclusion of their enquiries. 232 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: I have been informed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) that in October 2005 and July 2006, Castlemaine District Radio Inc made enquiries regarding licences for low power open narrowcasting services. In late January 2006, ACMA received complaints from Castlemaine District Radio Inc. (as opposed to Castlemaine Community Radio Inc.) alleging that three low power open narrowcasting (LPON) services in the Castlemaine and Maldon areas were not providing a service. Providing a service with reasonable regularity is a condition of a licence that authorises the operation of an LPON service. I am informed that ACMA undertook an investigation into these allegations. ACMA has advised that it cancelled one of the three licences in question August 2006. The former licensee has requested ACMA review its decision to cancel the licence and this internal review is expected to be completed by the end of November 2006. Depending upon the outcome of the review, the former licensee may choose to appeal ACMA’s decision on reconsideration to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Investigations have been completed into the other two licences and I understand that ACMA will shortly be considering the findings. 233 233 4742 233 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 10 October 2006: In respect of the Minister’s plan to amend Australia’s media ownership laws, will any proposed reform provide a statutory definition of a ‘voice’ for the purposes of the 4/5 independent voices test; if not, why not. Can the Minister advise whether a free weekly entertainment guide is regarded as a ‘voice’ for the purposes of the 4/5 independent voices test. Can the Minister advise whether a community radio or television station is regarded as a ‘voice’ for the purposes of a 4/5 independent voices test. Can the Minister advise whether a sport radio or television broadcaster is regarded as a ‘voice’ for the purposes of a 4/5 independent voices test. 233 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: to (4)The honourable member’s attention is directed to the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act 2006 and the “points test” of section 61AC. 233 233 4743 233 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 10 October 2006: In respect of the Minister’s plan to amend Australia’s media ownership laws, has the Minister read an article by Neil Shoebridge titled ‘Expect shake-out to follow rule change’, which appeared on page 14 of The Australian Financial Review on 9 October 2006. In respect of that part of the report that said: “most media executives, analysts and investment bankers believe that one corporate move will trigger a flood of deals” and that “the end of the cross- media ownership restrictions will trigger corporate activity. As soon as one company moves, others will follow”, will the Minister explain how her plan to abolish cross-media ownership laws will safeguard diversity in metropolitan and regional news services. Can the Minister advise whether the 4/5 independent voices test will ensure that the diversity in political commentary and news services will be protected; if not, why not; if so, will the Minister ensure that broadcasters who are almost exclusively reliant upon music or sport broadcasting will be excluded from the ‘voices’ definition. How is it in the public, interest to allow a media owner to potentially own a free-to-air television station, radio station, newspapers, magazines, internet news sites and a part-share of a monopoly pay- TV network, in one market. 234 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Yes. The Minister will not comment on media speculation about policy matters. The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act 2006 contains significant safeguards designed to protect diversity whilst encouraging greater competition and allowing media companies to achieve economies of scale and scope. In addition to the 5/4 diversity test, established under s61AB of the Act, transactions involving more than 2 out of the 3 regulated media platforms in a radio licence area are prohibited under s61AEA. The safeguards in the Act are based on the approach to media regulation as currently applied under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. All commercial television and radio licences and Associated Newspapers are subject to the same regulatory framework, regardless of content, ratings or other qualitative factors. Criticism of this approach should therefore also be directed at the outdated cross-media laws established by the previous government in 1987. Refer to the answer to part (3). 234 234 4763 234 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 12 October 2006: In respect of the Minister’s plan to amend Australia’s cross-media ownership laws, is the Minister aware of a report by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission titled Media Mergers, which states that “a key purpose of the Trade Practices Act 1974 is to protect competition in markets in Australia, including media markets. Media diversity is primarily protected by the restrictions on cross-media mergers in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992”. Has the Minister read an article titled ‘ACCC will protect media diversity’, which appeared on the Sydney Morning Herald internet website on 14 September 2006. Can the Minister confirm that part of the report which says the Minister “is confident the consumer watchdog will be able to protect media diversity following the government’s overhaul of industry regulations”. In light of the Government’s plans to amend cross-media ownership protections, how does the Minister reconcile the apparent conflict between statements made to the Sydney Morning Herald and the ACCC’s statement that media -diversity is primarily protected by restrictions on cross-media mergers. 234 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Yes. Yes. and (4)The Minister will not comment on media speculation on policy matters 235 235 4764 235 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 12 October 2006: Can the Minister explain how the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006 can be in the public interest when it may allow Australia’s two largest media companies to own (a) almost all of the major newspapers throughout Australia, (b) a free-to-air television network, (c) a monopoly pay TV broadcaster and (d) 70 percent of news and information sites on the internet; if not, why not. How will weakening cross-media ownership laws promote media diversity in Australia. 235 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: and (2) The Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Act 2006 contains significant safeguards designed to protect diversity whilst encouraging greater competition and allowing media companies to achieve economies of scale and scope. In addition to the 5/4 diversity test established under s61AB of the Act, transactions involving more than 2 out of the 3 regulated media platforms in a radio licence area are prohibited under s61AEA. 235 235 4805 235 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 16 October 2006: Further to the Minister’s response to Part (3) of question No. 3392 (Hansard, 10 October 2006, page 72), (a) why does the Minister direct my attention to the Government’s New Media Framework for Australia of 13 July 2006 and (b) where in the New Media Framework for Australia of 13 July 2006 does it explain why the Government will not grant a fourth free-to-air television licence to a new media player. Further to the Minister’s response to Part (6) of question No 3392 (Hansard, 10 October 2006, page 72), (a) why does the Minister direct my attention to New Media Framework for Australia of 13 July 2006 and (b) why does the New Media Framework for Australia of 13 July 2006 not explain that the Government would allow News Limited and Publishing and Broadcasting Limited to own (i) virtually all of Australia’s major metropolitan newspapers and magazines, (ii) a free-to-air television network each, (iii) a quarter share, each, in monopoly pay television Foxtel and (iv) approximately 70 percent of the Internet’s news and information sites. Will the Minister explain how the media landscape outlined in Part (2) promotes genuine media diversity and is both in the public interest and good for Australia’s democracy. 235 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: to (3)The honourable member has repeatedly asked Questions on Notice regarding the impact on media diversity of the Government’s media reform package. The Government has addressed this issue in detail in its media reform discussion paper of March 2006 Meeting the Digital Challenge, its announcement of the media reform package in July 2006 and then in Parliament as part of the process for the introduction and passage of the media reform bills, including an inquiry by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee. The Government has consistently explained in detail how its media reforms, as implemented by the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Media Ownership) Act 2006, will reform Australia’s outdated media ownership laws, while safeguarding media diversity. Further explanation is unnecessary, and accordingly the Minister will continue to refer the honourable member to previous answers. 236 236 4806 236 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 0 Mr Murphy asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, in writing, on 16 October 2006: Further to the Minister’s response to question No. 3968 (Hansard, 11 October 2006, page 161) and her replies to questions Nos. 3596, 3600, 3601 (Hansard, 16 August 2006, page 131), 3602, 3642 (Hansard, 16 August 2006, page 132), 3720 (Hansard, 16 August 2006, page 138), 3721 and 3723 (Hansard, 16 August 2006, page 139) why does the Minister have nothing further to add to her previous answers on these issues. Why will the Minister not spell out the benefits to the public interest and Australia’s democracy of the Minister’s Broadcasting Services Amendment (Media Ownership) Bill 2006, particularly as it applies to Mr Rupert Murdoch’s media company News Limited and Mr James Packer’s media company Publishing and Broadcasting Limited. 236 McGauran, Peter, MP XH4 Gippsland NATS Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr McGauran —The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: and (2) The honourable member’s attention is directed to the Minister’s answer to Question 3392. 236 236 4809 236 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP 0 Mr McClelland asked the Minister for Human Services, in writing, on 17 October 2006: How many Centrelink payments are paid overseas on the basis of (a) residency and (b) reciprocal agreements. How many of the recipients of the payments identified in Part (1) are questioned about their income and assets, and how often are they asked to supply this information. 236 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP Minister for Human Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Workplace Relations 1 Mr Hockey —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 13 October 2006, 30,787 Centrelink payments are paid overseas on the basis of residency. As at 13 October 2006, 37,207 Centrelink payments are paid overseas on the basis of international social security agreements. Please note these figures include customers permanently residing outside Australia and those customers that are temporarily absent from Australia on a long-term basis. It does not include customers where the absence from Australia is short-term. Centrelink customers who reside overseas are subject to the same eligibility and review processes that apply to Australian resident customers. To prepare this answer it has taken 3 hours and 31 minutes at an estimated cost of $197.