text
stringlengths 1.26k
373k
| country
stringclasses 3
values | year
int64 2k
2.02k
⌀ |
|---|---|---|
I move: That the bill be now read a second time. The Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] is a major reform of the processes for the making, publication, scrutiny and sunsetting of Commonwealth delegated legislation. As part of its law and justice and new deal for small business policies, the government undertook to introduce a legislative instruments bill, with limited exemptions and specific provision for five-year sunsetting of regulations. This bill implements those policies. In addition, the bill performs a gatekeeper role in relation to legislative instruments by preventing the unchecked proliferation of delegated legislation. The previous government had introduced the Legislative Instruments Bill 1994. That bill was considered by several parliamentary committees, including the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and many suggestions for change were made. The bill was awaiting passage in the Senate when parliament was prorogued prior to the 1996 election. The extent of scrutiny to which the 1994 bill was subjected is indicative of the importance of this legislative reform. The Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 drew on that earlier work. In particular, this bill overcame the deficiencies of the 1994 bill by the introduction of a structured sunsetting
regime, more structured consultation principles and processes that had been developed in the Council of Australian Governments, and the reduction of the exemptions from the operation of the bill. The bill represents the best achievable package of reforms. It represents a significant shift in control over delegated legislation back towards the parliament and increases government accountability through improved access and consultation mechanisms. This is the same bill that was introduced into the House of Representatives on 24 June 1996 and passed by that House on 11 September 1996. The bill was introduced into the Senate on 8 October 1996 and, notwithstanding the strong general support of the Senate for the bill, finally passed on 25 September 1997 with 18 government and 35 other amendments. A large number of the non-government amendments emasculated the stringent consultation principles and processes and removed the sunsetting regime. On 17 November 1997, the House of Representatives considered the Senate amendments and returned the bill to the Senate. The House accepted the government amendments but rejected the other Senate amendments. The House accepted that many of the non-government amendments were unnecessary and the major amendments made aspects of the bill unworkable. Further, the House also passed some additional government amendments. On 5 December 1997, after the Senate had again considered the bill and amendments and insisted on its previous amendments, the House finally laid the bill aside. The government is reintroducing this bill because it has a mandate to enact it and has a clear commitment to it. The government believes that the people of Australia have an expectation of a right of access to all legislation applying to them and that they have a right to participate in the development of all delegated legislation being made which will or might affect them. The government's law and justice policy statement commits the government to ensuring that the consultation process under the bill would include the preparation of a regulatory impact statement which would clearly indicate
the objectives of the proposed regulation, the alternatives for achieving those objectives, the costs and benefits of each alternative and the reason for the adoption of the measure advanced. This bill gives effect to that commitment and is welcomed by the business community and, no doubt, the broader community. The regulatory burden on business, and small business in particular, has been a major impediment to business efficiency and the creation of more jobs, and should be significantly diminished as a result of this bill. The government will not accept amendment of the bill which would alter the principles of the bill or reduce the compliance requirements that rule-makers will need to follow. The parliament expects no less accountability and information for legislation made pursuant to delegated powers than is available for primary legislation. As I have said, there is broad support for this legislation. What is disturbing in this matter is that both Houses have considered and passed each of the provisions of this bill and yet were unable to agree on passage of the bill as a whole. It is the classic case of playing politics to try and get concessions from government which restricts the government's capacity to control its important programs. This was evident in the delay in passage of the provisions relating to non-disallowance of certain migration instruments and the exemption from the regime of a limited range of public sector terms and conditions instruments. The Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances has sought to remove exemptions from disallowance for instruments made under national schemes of legislation and proclamations under the Quarantine Act. I met with the Chair on these matters on a number of occasions and explained why I could not accede to his proposals. I have also written to the Chair setting out the reasons for my position and those letters have been tabled in the Senate. The views on national schemes of legislation are founded on the Regulations and Ordinances Committee's position paper about scrutiny of national scheme legislation which canvasses the desirability of uniform scrutiny principles for national schemes. My depart
ment made a substantial submission on an earlier issues paper on this subject, drawing attention to a range of difficulties that needed to be considered. I understand that the committee is currently considering a draft of its report in the matter. To remove the exemption for national scheme legislation at this time would be premature without knowing the committee's approach, the rationale for it and whether implementation of the committee's report is desirable, as it has major significance for both the Commonwealth and the states. Knowing the present uncertainty about final arrangements for a uniform scrutiny regime, clause 72 of the bill provides specifically for issues arising from national schemes of legislation to be considered in the course of the review of the operation of the legislative instruments legislation. That is the only appropriate way to approach the issue at this time. The exemptions for quarantine proclamations are necessary because they are the only way to provide specific control mechanisms to prevent the entry and spread of disease and pests affecting humans, animals and plants in Australia. Typically, the detailed conditions under which importation of a particular commodity from a particular country or region may be allowed are set out in protocols developed by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service within the scope of the relevant quarantine proclamation. Each set of protocol conditions is developed on the basis of consideration of relevant scientific information and risk analysis. Quarantine proclamations have never been subject to disallowance by the parliament. This approach is being continued in the bill on the basis that it is not appropriate to task the legislature to consider whether to disallow such highly technical instruments. Remedies on alleged procedural defects in the making of these instruments are available under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977.Sunsetting of delegated legislation is an important component of the government's policy on regulation review. It will ensure that business regulation is reduced to the
minimum necessary for effective accountability and control and that remaining delegated legislation is regularly considered for appropriateness, currency, effectiveness and necessity. The Administrative Review Council's report Rule making by Commonwealth agencies which led to this legislation recommended that all existing principal instruments of a legislative character and all instruments subject to the Legislative Instruments Act should be sunsetted. The House committee, in its report on the 1994 bill, which did not provide for sunsetting, recognised the resources issues associated with sunsetting and recommended that a sunsetting regime be introduced in relation to all existing and future legislative instruments as soon as possible. The House committee's report Clearer Commonwealth law, and the Access to Justice Advisory Committee's report Access to justice also supported the early introduction of a sunsetting program. This bill gives effect to the government's policy of ensuring that all new regulations are subject to a five-year sunset clause. This is an important policy that the government cannot, and will not, back away from. It is part of a range of policies that remove unnecessary burdens from the business community and benefit the whole community. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. | Australia | 1,998 |
I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill amends the Privacy Act 1988 to apply it to personal information held by contractors in relation to services provided to the Commonwealth. A key objective of this government is to provide the Australian
people with better government. We are determined to ensure that public resources are used effectively and efficiently. To ensure the best possible use of public resources, service delivery methods must be continually improved. One method of improving performance is the introduction of market discipline into the delivery of appropriate Commonwealth services, through competitive tendering and contracting of services. Performance improvement must, however, be delivered with appropriate protection for the privacy of individuals. The government is committed to ensuring that where its agencies contract for the delivery of services this does not lead to a loss of privacy protection. Since 1 January 1989 when it came into operation the Privacy Act has required government agencies that hold information about individuals to deal with that information in a manner that protects the individual's privacy. This bill ensures that the existing protections afforded by the Privacy Act are not lost when services are delivered under contract. The bill extends the current obligations of government agencies to any person or body responsible for the provision of services under a contract with the Commonwealth or one of its agencies. Subcontractors will also be covered. The bill uses the term `contracted service provider' to refer to such contractors and subcontractors. The services brought within the scope of the act may be delivered directly to a Commonwealth agency. This ensures that privacy protection under the act continues where, for example, an agency outsources information technology services under the IT infrastructure initiative. Importantly, the bill also extends coverage to cases where Commonwealth agencies contract for the provision of services to people other than the Commonwealth. For example, where a Commonwealth agency contracts with a company to provide job seeking assistance to unemployed individuals, that company will be covered by the act. This means that those who have previously received services delivered directly by Commonwealth agencies can be assured that the protection of their personal
information continues at the same high standard required by the Privacy Act if those services are provided by contracted service providers. The information privacy principles, or IPPs, contained in the Privacy Act require that personal information be collected only for a lawful purpose related to the functions or activities of the collector. Where information is collected from the person to whom the information relates, the collector must see that that person is generally aware of such things as the purpose for which the information is being collected, whether it is compulsory to provide the information and the usual disclosure practices in relation to that information. The IPPs require agencies, when collecting information, to see that it is relevant to the purpose of collection, up-to-date and complete. Agencies should only use information for a purpose to which it is relevant and before using information should take reasonable steps to check that it is accurate, up-to-date and complete for the purposes for which it is to be used. Subject to certain exceptions, notably for law enforcement and preservation of life, information may not be used for a purpose other than that for which it was collected or disclosed to another person, except with the agreement of the individual concerned. The IPPs require agencies to store information records securely against loss or misuse. They are to provide information about the types of personal information they hold. Subject to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 exemptions, agencies are required to provide an individual with access to his or her personal information records and to make corrections for accuracy, relevance and completeness. The bill applies the IPPs directly to the acts and practices of contracted service providers where they are dealing with personal information under or for the purposes of the Commonwealth contract to the same extent that they would have applied to the acts and practices of the contracting agency. So the rights of individuals to know for what purpose information about them is being collected and to be confident that it will be securely stored
and not disclosed to others except in appropriate circumstances will continue to be given effect. To date, where agencies have contracted out the delivery of services, government policy has been that privacy protection should be provided for in the contract. This has provided significant privacy protection. However, applying the Privacy Act directly to contracted service providers will ensure that there can be no change in privacy requirements as a result of contracting out. The bill extends the Privacy Commissioner's role of monitoring and auditing compliance with the IPPs to contracted service providers. This monitoring and auditing role has proved to be a very effective method of educating and providing guidance to public sector agencies about their obligations under the IPPs. This education and guidance will now be extended to contracted service providers. Moreover, by applying the IPPs directly to contracted service providers, the bill significantly improves the ability of an individual who feels their privacy has been interfered with to seek a remedy. A person will now be able to complain to the Privacy Commissioner about a breach of the IPPs by a contracted service provider. The Privacy Commissioner will be able to investigate such complaints, and to conciliate to reach a settlement where a breach has occurred. The Privacy Commissioner has an enviable record in this respect and her office is highly skilled in assisting those involved in resolving complaints. In the rare case where a settlement cannot be agreed, the Privacy Commissioner will be able to make a determination. She may determine, for example, that a contracted service provider should apologise, change its practices, or pay compensation for damage resulting from its breach. There are some services which it would be inappropriate for these amendments to cover. For example, the Commonwealth has, for many years, provided funding to community and volunteer organisations to assist them in the delivery of services. Although many such funding programs are referred to as grants, increasingly organisations in receipt of such funding are required to enter into contracts, to
ensure proper financial and other accountability. Funding is also provided for the delivery of some services that have traditionally been delivered by the private rather than the public sector. This bill is not intended to place new obligations on organisations delivering services traditionally delivered by the private sector. Rather, the bill is intended to ensure the continuation of existing protections. The bill therefore does not extend coverage to contractors providing `excluded funded services', which are listed in the proposed new schedule 3 to the act. Because programs change, and the timeframes may not allow for legislative amendments, the bill allows for regulations to ensure that services are not inappropriately excluded by references in the schedule. The regulations may also specify additional services that are to be excluded from coverage, so that the introduction of new funding programs is not delayed by the need to await legislative amendment of the schedule. In addition to the direct responsibility of contracted service providers for their acts and practices, the bill contains provisions designed to ensure that Commonwealth agencies, and the ministers responsible for them, remain accountable for the contracts they enter into. Outsourcing agencies will be informed of any complaints against their contractors, and the Privacy Commissioner will, for example, be able to recommend changes in contracting practices if appropriate. So Commonwealth agencies will, as an essential aspect of entering into contracts for the delivery of services, need to ensure that prospective contracted service providers are aware of and able to meet the obligations of the act. Existing contractors should be operating in accordance with accepted privacy principles. The extension of the act should therefore require them to make few, if any, changes in practices. Commonwealth agencies will be expected to provide assistance and support to contracted service providers developing appropriate systems and practices for the delivery of services under contract. In addition, the Privacy Commissioner and her office will be
available to provide advice and assistance to contracted service providers in meeting their obligations under the act. The Privacy Commissioner has played a valuable educational role in relation to the obligations of the act for Commonwealth agencies, and the government is confident that contracted service providers will likewise find her assistance to be of great benefit. There is no significant financial impact on government as a consequence of applying the Privacy Act to contracted service providers. The contracting agency will retain some responsibility for the acts and practices of the contracted service provider, but this is a cost which government would otherwise have if that function had not been contracted out. Similarly, any costs for contractors of complying with privacy obligations may be taken into account when negotiating the contract price. Many of these costs may already be taken into account in current contractual arrangements which include privacy requirements in accordance with current government competitive tendering and contracting policy. The IPPs will apply to the acts and practices of contracted service providers from the commencement of the amendments. As the limitations upon use and disclosure of personal information are related to a person having been made aware, at the time of collection, of the purpose of collection, these IPPs will apply only to information collected by contracted service providers from commencement. This ensures that contracted service providers are not required to contact individuals to seek their consent to uses of information already collected by them. However, the IPPs relating to matters such as secure storage and ensuring personal information is relevant and accurate before it is used will apply regardless of when the contracted service provider obtained the information. The principles that people are entitled to have access to personal information held by agencies about them, and to have that information amended if it is inaccurate, are integral privacy principles. The existing mechanisms for implementing these principles are contained in the Freedom of Information Act 1982. The government will therefore be
introducing a bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act to extend it to apply to requests by individuals for access to information about themselves held by contracted service providers. This will be effected by deeming documents containing such personal information to be in the possession of the relevant Commonwealth agency for this purpose. Commonwealth agencies will therefore remain responsible for the proper application of the exceptions to access contained in the Freedom of Information Act. The bill contains a number of safety net provisions. The government is mindful of concerns that the contracting out of services, particularly information technology services, could, if not appropriately controlled, lead to personal information being transferred offshore. An individual whose privacy is breached overseas may have great difficulty in obtaining a remedy from a contracted service provider who is not present in Australia. The government does not consider it appropriate for personal information to be processed overseas and has included provisions in its outsourcing contracts under the IT infrastructure initiative to require contractors to provide services under the contract in Australia. However, the government also recognises the importance of ensuring that legislative privacy protection continues, should any personal information be handled overseas by a contracted service provider. Privacy protection is ensured by the bill's deeming anything done outside Australia by a contracted service provider in relation to personal information to have been done in Australia. The bill also goes further to protect individuals if a contracted service provider is not resident in Australia—for example, if the service provider closes down its Australian operations—when it breaches an individual's privacy rights. In that case, any breach by the service provider will be attributed to the contracted service provider resident in Australia, or the Commonwealth agency, responsible for the information. An affected individual will, in such a case, therefore be able to
seek compensation or other remedies under the act. In addition, the bill ensures that an individual whose privacy has been interfered with by a contractor will still be able to complain to the Privacy Commissioner and to receive a remedy if appropriate, even if the contracted service provider ceases to exist, becomes bankrupt or insolvent or is wound up. In these circumstances, the bill allows the relevant Commonwealth agency to be substituted for the contracted service provider and to be required to pay any compensation. The bill removes any uncertainty about how the provision of personal information to a contracted service provider should be treated under the IPPs. It clarifies that this is to be treated as a `use' of information, not a `disclosure'. Personal information can therefore only be provided to a contracted service provider for a purpose for which the information was collected, subject to the existing exceptions such as where the individual has consented to a different use. The use to which the contracted service provider can put the information is subject to these same limitations. The contracted service provider will thus, for example, not be able to mix the information with other information they may hold. The overall effect of this bill is to ensure that contracted service providers are bound to comply with the IPPs in the same way as Commonwealth agencies and that the Privacy Commissioner's role of providing guidance, conciliation and monitoring continues to be available when Commonwealth agencies outsource the delivery of services. This bill therefore is an important step forward in ensuring that privacy protection keeps pace with developments in service delivery designed to provide more effective and efficient use of public resources. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum to the bill. | Australia | 1,998 |
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2] because it is another example of the flim-flam of government. This bill could just as well be titled the `charter of political hypocrisy'. This bill is another example of what governments do when they really do not know what to do and they want to appear to be doing something. It attacks the illusion rather than the reality. The truth is that you cannot make people honest or moral by legislation any more than you can make the media honest, moral or intelligent by legislation. These things are embedded in society and they have been eroded by the processes to which society has been subjected. I think this bill also denigrates the public. It tends to assume the public need protecting because they do not understand what governments do. The public know only too well what governments do and that is why the cynicism is out there in the community. The problem for people is that they have no real alternative. They are dealing with Tweedledum or Tweedledumber and they know that, no matter which way they vote, things will go on as they are. It is quite clear that this bill can be avoided. The previous speaker in this debate, the honourable member for Corio (Mr O'Connor), was wrong when he referred to this bill as a mea culpa for the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) following his behaviour in 1983 when he failed to disclose the projected deficit, even though at the time he had notification from Treasury of that figure. This bill will not stop that sort of thing any more than the Privacy Amendment Bill, which was just introduced by the Attorney-General (Mr Williams), will protect people's privacy. Those sorts of things come from the integrity of the institutions; you cannot legislate for them. No matter what the Attorney-General
says, information if processed offshore will be used, will be leaked, will be adulterated and will be used against people. There is basically no defence against that with the advent of new technology. The only way you can really contend with that is to make sure that process is done in-house by an honest Public Service whose integrity is rewarded. What is concerning people is not whether governments lie about budgets. They expect that sort of political opportunism from governments. They factor that into their thinking and their voting. What concerns people is that politicians in this place are acting in their interests. They do not expect people here to be infallible. They know that no-one is, least of all us. But when we make mistakes they expect us to make honest mistakes, mistakes which we perceived to be in their interest. What people want from government is policies that are going to assure a future for their children. They are not worried about this sort of flim-flam. They want to know that governments are committed to having jobs for their children. Yet they see a nation that has been deskilled before their eyes. They see a nation where living standards for many are dropping, a nation where we are told that we must accept a high level of unemployment, and when the unemployment level drops to nine per cent everyone says, `What a great success!' This is not the Australia people want from their politicians. This is where they want integrity and honesty. They want people endeavouring to make sure there is a future for their kids. They want a future with a high living standard, for which we need high levels of education and training—in which we are going backwards in every regard. They know intuitively or intellectually that the policy of economic rationalism endorsed by both parties here is not an economic policy; it is political ideology, the ideology of big business designed to control world trade, and they know this is the root cause of the dilemmas they have. If we are concerned about integrity in the parliament we could do some very simple things to reinstate it. There was a time in this place when in both the Liberal Party and the
Labor Party caucus rooms there was detailed discussion. People really argued—and politics is about argument—about the merits of legislation, but that has all gone. It has been swept away. That was started by the Labor Party with their factions and was quickly followed by the Liberal Party. Now there is a very little discussion in the caucus rooms of either party. Legislation is rubber stamped by the factional leaders, and I know from my experience in these places that the minute there is any sign of argument the motion is put and it goes through. If we could do away with the party system and people were to vote on the basis of their honest belief on legislation, the people would be far better served. That simple thing may be too much to hope for. What is readily available is the introduction to our constitution of citizen initiated referenda. This will do more to establish budget honesty, policy honesty and integrity generally than anything contained in this bill. Citizen initiated referenda were in the first draft of our constitution but were taken out because the politicians did not want the people to have this power. It is my belief that people will handle this power far better than parliament has in recent years. I have a faith in the commonsense of the Australian people. I believe that if we gave the power to citizens to initiate referenda it would do more than anything else to put integrity back into politics, into the bureaucracy and into our courts, which have become founts of social engineering and have forgotten their basic law. In my view, citizen initiated referenda would be rarely used and used decreasingly as the parliament, the courts and the bureaucracy realise the power of it. This is how you put integrity back into the system. Why won't the Prime Minister and the government embrace this very simple solution? It is because they are interested in the flim-flam and the illusion, not the reality. I will not be voting against this bill; in fact, whether I vote for or against it is of very little consequence. But it is quite clear that governments know what has to be done. Their failure to do it is a betrayal of the people of this nation. We have seen a constitutional referendum: $40 million of taxpayers' money to achieve what end? There was, I suppose, some entertainment value in showing the paucity of intellectual rigour amongst the republicans. It was a clear demonstration to the people that there was no great benefit to them in those endeavours when you had one of the doyens of the republicans saying that they wanted a system with all the checks and balances of the system we already have. Why would we want to change for something almost as good as we have got? People saw this waste, and this is the sort of thing that makes people cynical. People will understand, and people who have come across it understand very well, that citizen initiated referenda return power to the people in a real, tangible way. It gives people power to control the behaviour of politicians in a way that this bill never will do and in fact never was intended to do. I have already spent far too much time on this bill. This bill, as I have said earlier, is an example of the sort of stuff we get in this parliament. We see it repeatedly. The Australian people are told, `Take away the guns of the people. You can't trust the people with the guns, you must take them away.' We have seen armed robbery and home invasion already out of control since that legislation came in. Did the Prime Minister, John Howard, really believe that he was going to achieve something with that legislation? Of course he didn't. The man is not that stupid. But it was seen to be something that would project him as leadership material. We see governments say that the wharves are Australia's problem. The wharves are not Australia's problem, and are certainly not the problem of the rural sector. I have been on a committee looking at the wharves and it was clearly shown that the problems were between the wharf and the warehouse, not on the wharf. Our wharves work with antiquated equipment. There is clearly a management problem there. The most efficient wharf in Australia is Adelaide, a 100 per cent unionised wharf. If the National Farmers Federation could get the efficiency of the Australian waterfront to the level of Adelaide, they would do far more than they are going to
achieve themselves, because they are going to be faced with the same conditions that bedevil the waterfronts of Sydney and Melbourne. I do not think these people actually believe what they are saying; it is simply part of the hypocrisy and the illusion that governments are doing something. They put up straw men: if we can only fix the wharves, Australia will be better. It will not be better because the wharves are not the problem. Governments say that if we could only fix drugs the country would be better. They know how to fix drugs, but what they do is throw a lot of money at an area where they know it will have no effect at all. They know that if you want to control drugs you have to legalise and control them—you have to take away the profit. We never get the Mr Bigs in the drug business. The problem with drugs is not the people it kills. That in a sense is irrelevant. The number was about 580 last year. Probably far more people died of renal failure from taking analgesics, but they were mainly middle aged women who died quietly screaming to themselves; they did not go out and rob chemist shops. The problem with drugs is the perversion of the system that they cause and the effect that has on integrity: the all pervading corruption that exists not only in the police force but also in the bureaucracy and the judiciary. Governments know this, governments have the wherewithal to fix it, but governments do not because it is not in governments' interest to do so. I think it is a disgrace that this House wastes its time on this charter of budget honesty which will have no effect at all, and in any case is so easily circumvented as to make the whole system a joke. | Australia | 1,998 |
I want to thank those people who have participated in this debate on the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2] . Of course, we have had this debate before and some speakers have been wide ranging in comments on this topic. However, I want to just go back over and recapture a few of the points which the government is making in regard to this legislation. There is a very clear objective for the government in regard to the
Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996, and that is to produce improved fiscal outcomes by putting in place institutional arrangements to improve the transparency and accountability applying to the conduct of fiscal policy. So transparency and accountability are fundamental to this debate. The government believes that both of these are urgently needed, particularly in regard to the position of the country's finances coming up to elections. The reason for there being this urgent need is that, prior to coming into government at the last election—and, of course, the Australian people know this—we were told that the books were in order. But upon coming into government we found there was this $10 billion debt, a huge debt, left by the previous government. Just reflecting on that, it is interesting to note the sorts of budget deficits which the Labor Party actually introduced into this country around the time I came into parliament. Back in, say, 1983-84, the budget deficit then was $8 billion; the next year it was $6 billion; the following year it was $4 billion. Of course, there is a remarkable difference when fiscal discipline by the Howard government is compared with that of previous Labor governments. I think the Australian people are very much aware that we started off with a $10 billion deficit—and here we are, having turned it around within three years to a surplus. It is going to be a surplus this year; we know that. | Australia | 1,998 |
That is the budget deficits back in 1983, 1984 and 1985. This is what they actually introduced into the parliament in
those years. Considering the enormity of that compared with the size of the budget those days, that was extraordinary. Then what happened in 1986? We then had the Treasurer of the day telling us that we were going to become a banana republic—and that is exactly right, and he caused it. The great difference between the leadership being provided to the country then and that being provided now is that this government, instead of continuing with budget deficits, has decided to be accountable to the Australian people to make sure that the budget deficits which we were left with by Labor will not occur. It is the height of, I guess you could say, hypocrisy, and it really does stretch the imagination of the Australian people when they find that the previous government—under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition and former Minister for Finance (Mr Beazley), the person who had the responsibility to keep the discipline of the former government in regard to financial matters—left this country with a $10 billion debt, and then, of course, for him now to say to the Australian people, `We're going to bring in budget surpluses.' Budget surpluses by the Labor Party? This would be a remarkable turnaround, and the Australian people would not believe it in a pink fit. That is the reality of it. In this debate there are 10 amendments which the opposition want to put up for this particular legislation. The reality is that, when you look through it, you can basically say two things about these amendments. The first is that they are already provided for in the legislation; and, secondly, it is the opposition trying to govern from opposition—in other words, they want to put their ideas into place. Quite frankly, the Australian people realise that the policies of the previous Labor administration sent this country to a point of bankruptcy with a $10 billion debt. As we have said, in recent months people are concerned about the Asian crisis, and here we have a situation where this government, because of its fiscal rectitude, has actually been able to turn around the Australian budget to being a surplus within the first period of government. So, within three years of being in office, we
have been able to turn it around and get our budget back into surplus. Not only that, but the policy positions which we have adopted have meant that we have reduced interest rates out there in the Australian community—interest rates for people dropping from around about 10.5 per cent to 6.5 per cent; in other words, a drop of 40 per cent in interest rates on variable mortgages. Also, economic growth when we came into government was about 3.4 per cent, and in the year up to September last year it was 4.6 per cent. So the record of this government is very clear, and it is in contrast to the record of the previous government. Additionally, in the last three months of last year 145,000 new jobs were established. | Australia | 1,998 |
It is great news for Australians. Then we have the work for the dole scheme, which many people are applauding; the Labor Party of course oppose it. Tens of thousands of people will benefit from the work for the dole scheme—tens of thousands—and the overwhelming majority of people in Australia believe that that scheme is long overdue. We have brought that scheme in, yet the Labor Party opposes us. I am interested to see that the Labor Party are trying to sort of remake themselves. I was amused at coming across one of the statements by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) on Radio National on 17 November last year. He was talking about New Labor, and so forth. He said: Sure, there are all sorts of elements of continuity between the kind of government that we were for the last 13 years and the kind of government that we will be in the future. Then listen to this last sentence: We'd be utterly implausible if we tried to present ourselves as a different kind of outfit. Dead right. That is the point to be made here today: that they would like to present themselves now as being people of fiscal rectitude. But, of course, they would not be. He is dead right. It would be utterly implausible, and the Australian people know that. Here we have the Labor Party; they say they do not really
oppose the charter of budget honesty, but in fact they do. | Australia | 1,998 |
It is encouraging to hear those comments. Basically, they do not really believe in a charter of budget honesty. The nonsense we have had over the last six or eight months in regard to debating this issue has all been filibustering. That is the approach the Labor Party have been undertaking in the Senate with this legislation, together with lots of other pieces of legislation the government has put forward and the Australian people want—filibustering, trying to take up time, trying to delay things, trying to frustrate the government of the day. Along with the Independents in the Senate, you can gather the numbers on a range of issues, and this is one of those issues on which you have brought in amendments just to delay getting legislation through the parliament. The reality is that this legislation will bring about a better policy setting framework for fiscal policy, and it will do that in two particular ways. Firstly, there are the principles of sound fiscal management with which fiscal policy should comply. Secondly, it will provide for requirements that the government articulate its fiscal objectives, strategy and expected fiscal outcomes. Not only will it provide that fiscal policy setting framework; it will also provide a fiscal policy reporting framework. That reporting framework provides for an enhanced fiscal reporting process which will increase the transparency of government reporting. The key elements of this framework include the economic and fiscal outlook reports coming out twice a year—at budget time and mid-year. Of course, they are very useful documents to focus on how things are travelling in the government and in the financial circumstances of the country. There will also be a pre-election report on the economic and fiscal outlook. Lastly, there will be an intergenerational report every five years on the long-run implications of government policies. Not only that, but a reporting framework also aims to ensure the public has sufficient
information to evaluate the conduct of fiscal policy. I come back to the point that under this legislation never again will we go to an election where people will be deceived as to the state of the books. We were told that everything was in order by the then Minister for Finance, now Leader of the Opposition. He said that everything was okay, that the books were balanced, but in actual fact when we came into government there was this $10 billion debt. This government did not create the debt, but we did something about it and we have actually brought the books back into balance. Not only that, we have brought them into surplus. This was the responsibility of the previous Labor administration. This legislation will allow the Australian people to know, prior to any election, the state of the finances of this country. That is the reality, and the filibustering by the Labor Party is to try to delay this legislation coming into place. The reports will provide information on the fiscal measure that the government nominates in its fiscal strategy as important for setting and assessing fiscal policy. Also, the reporting will be improved through the presentation of an enhanced mid-year report, a pre-election report and an intergenerational report. All of those certainly will help the Australian people assess the record of the government of the day. That is what this charter is about: it is about transparency and accountability. Basically, the Labor Party does not like this legislation on both these issues. They are filibustering and they are trying to bring in amendments to change the legislation, to make it less appropriate than that being proposed by the government. The position of the government is very clear on this. As was the case the last time we debated this issue, we are opposed to each of the amendments which are being proposed. I commend the charter of budget honesty legislation to the parliament as proposed by the government. | Australia | 1,998 |
by leave— I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 10:(1) Schedule 1, clause 5, page 7 (after line 23), at the at the end of paragraph (b), add:(iii) to the achievement of full employment in Australia; and(iv) to the overall economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia; and(v) to the maintenance or improvement of the real value of wages and conditions and the welfare of workers; and(2) Schedule 1, clause 12, page 11 (after line 25), after paragraph (d), insert:(da) a report prepared by the Commissioner of Taxation and the Secretary to the Treasury of any material threats to the integrity of the tax system including the fiscal impact of these threats, and their best professional judgment of the specific means necessary to counter these threats;(3) Schedule 1, clause 20, page 16 (lines 5 to 11), omit "5" (wherever occurring), substitute "3".(4) Schedule 1, clause 22, page 17 (lines 5 to 8), omit the clause, substitute:22 Public release of pre-election economic and fiscal outlook reportThe responsible Secretaries are, jointly, to publicly release a pre-election economic and fiscal outlook report:(a) two years and nine months after the first day of sitting of the House of Representatives following the previous general election; or(b) should writs for a general election be issued prior to the report required under paragraph (a), within five days of the issue of those writs.(5) Schedule 1, clause 27, page 20 (after line 25), at the at the end of the clause, add:(3) Apart from providing information to the responsible Secretaries under subclause (1), the Minister must not participate in the preparation of a pre-election economic and fiscal outlook report.(6) Schedule 1, clause 29, page 22 (line 7), omit "publicly announced".(7) Schedule 1, clause 29, page 22 (line 11), omit "publicly announced".(8) Schedule 1, clause 29, page 22 (lines 19 to 23), omit subclause (4), substitute:(4) The making of a request by the Leader of the Opposition is to be authorised by the
Prime Minister who must then notify the responsible Secretaries immediately of the authorisation. The responsible Secretaries are not obliged or authorised to take any action in relation to the request unless the Prime Minister has notified them that the request has been authorised.(4A) Nothing in this clause requires the Leader of the Opposition to disclose to the Prime Minister the details of an Opposition policy.(9) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 30), at the at the end of clause 29, add:(6) The Secretaries may decline to prepare costings under any request pursuant to this clause where they consider the request requires policy advice rather than merely the preparation of costings.(7) Any request by the Leader of the Opposition pursuant to subclause (1) shall not be disclosed by the Secretaries to any person not authorised by the Leader of the Opposition to have access to that information.(10) Schedule 1, page 23 (after line 15), at the end of clause 30, add:(4) A policy costing must indicate what assumptions have been used in the costing and must explain any limitations of, or information necessary to qualify, any modelling process used in the costing. I was listening to the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) to try to ascertain just why it was that the government would not be prepared to accept the amendments that we are moving. The main thing I got out of his contribution in summing up the second reading debate was that it would amount to our trying to govern from opposition. I have to say to the House that someone has got to, because there is certainly no leadership coming from the government. We are doing our best to fill that very considerable leadership vacuum. I turn to the points made by the government concerning this bill and why it will not accept amendments. The first one, I suppose, goes to this issue of enhanced fiscal responsibility, or fiscal rectitude as the parliamentary secretary described it in his summing up. I think the House ought to take a look at just what the government's record is in this area before it starts to believe this account of enhanced fiscal responsibility and fiscal rectitude. The
latest information is very troubling. If we look at the current account deficit, the March 1996 quarterly deficit was $5.3 billion and the latest current account deficit is $5.7 billion. So we have got the current account deficit going up. Net foreign debt in March 1996 was at $194.7 billion. It is now $222.3 billion. So foreign debt is going up. We wonder what has happened to the foreign debt truck. I think that under this government it has been given a brand new motor. The government appears to be in serious trouble in areas like economic growth. Although the Treasurer (Mr Costello) seems to think that the economy is growing nicely, we have had an average of three per cent growth for the time that the coalition has been in office. That is not good enough. All the reliable indicators say that you need economic growth of about four per cent or above in order to bring down unemployment or even to maintain stable levels of unemployment. However, the government's forecast for economic growth for the 1998-99 financial year is that it will slow to 3.25 per cent—quite an alarming outcome. So we can see from these indicators that the government simply has not been able to deliver. The observations about enhanced fiscal responsibility need to be taken with a grain of salt. One of the other areas of government forecast and government inaction which concerns us greatly, and which is why we have moved amendment No. 1, is employment. The government said that they were going to reduce unemployment and had forecast that unemployment would be 8.25 per cent by June of last year. In fact, unemployment was at 8.5 per cent; long-term unemployment was up, and is still up; and youth unemployment is up. So there is no indication that the government's efforts, such as they are, on employment are bearing any fruit whatsoever. That is one of the reasons we feel it is necessary that the charter of budget honesty contain a specific reference to the achievement of full employment in Australia. That is why amendment No. 1 is worded the way it is and why we intend to persist with that amendment. I also want to go to the issue of honesty—this issue of transparency and accountability. The Treasurer in his second reading speech made observations about how this bill would provide for enhanced transparency in government. He said that this will make sure that `there is transparency in economic policy in this country'. I want to speak to whether the Treasurer is genuinely committed to transparency and accountability in this country. I have asked the Treasurer a number of questions on notice going to what I believe are important issues. The Treasurer's responses indicate a contempt on his part for the concept of a public right to know. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I join this debate for five minutes to take up some of the comments made by my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary (Cabinet) to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles). I am afraid these amendments to the Charter of Budget Honesty Bill 1996 [No. 2] are another example of the Labor Party trying to play catch-up politics. They are no more than an extension of Labor's 14-year rule. They have reinvented politics in this country with a 14-year defence: `If only we had had another term, we would have done this, we would have done that.'The simple reality is that they know they did not have the intestinal fortitude to do anything about a charter of budget honesty in the 13 years they were in government. The reason for that—no more and no less—is that if they did have it they would not have been able to pull the stunts they did, especially the one at the last election. That is when the then Minister for Finance, the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), went round this country during the election campaign and told the people of Australia that the books were in the black. As the Australian people know, not only were they not in the black; they were over $10 billion in the red. A member opposite was talking about deceit. I can think of no greater example of the deceit of the battlers of Australia than telling them that those who were running the housekeeping of this nation had the country
in the black when, in fact, they had a very large bank card. The mums and dads of Australia cannot get away with saying to their next-door neighbour that they have lots of money in the bank when they do not. They are accountable to their banks and their families. They are accountable to a large range of people. The former Labor government tried to tell the next-door neighbours that they had money in the bank when they did not. They deceived the next-door neighbours, who in this case are the people of Australia. The Labor Party is frightened of the charter of budget honesty because it will totally change the way the rules of the game. This government believes that the Australian people deserve a little bit of honesty from those who are running this country. They deserve nothing less. They should not be subjected again during election campaigns to outright lies—blatant lies—about the finances of this country. The mums and dads of Australia expect that the people who are running this country will act as they are forced to act when running their own household budgets. They expect us to undergo the principles that they have to undergo on a weekly or fortnightly basis when they are working out what they have to spend and what they do not have to spend. It is quite extraordinary to me that the former Labor government has this 14-year defence in relation to the charter of budget honesty—`We would have done it.' They have tacked something on at the end of this, knowing full well they would not have done it when in government, that they did not have the guts to do it when in government. What we are about on this side of the House is giving the Australian people no more and no less than what they deserve in relation to their understanding of this nation's finances. To come up with these amendments they have cobbled together, and to be the Latter-day Saints in relation to it, is not going to fool one single person. It does not fool anyone on this side of the House and it most certainly will not fool the Australian people. The opposition know as well as the government that they have done this only because
they are trying to tag themselves on to an issue that they would never in their wildest dreams have implemented. They would not have implemented it because they liked the rules the way they were and the rules Labor Party style were, `Don't tell them a thing.' (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
The problem for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Ronaldson) is that he apparently has not read the amendments. If this government were serious about trying to get a charter of budget honesty through this parliament and into operation, they would accept these amendments, as they were given the opportunity to do in the Senate last year, an opportunity which they were not prepared to take up. For those who are unaware of the content of the amendments, as the parliamentary secretary appears to be, let me go through them. We talk about the achievement of full employment in Australia. We talk about the overall economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia. We talk about the maintenance or improvement of the real value of wages and conditions and the welfare of workers. Is the parliamentary secretary against those things? Does he want to say to his constituents in Ballarat, `I don't really care about the achievement of full employment. I don't really care about overall economic prosperity and welfare. I don't really care about maintenance or improvement of the real value of wages and conditions and the welfare of workers.' That is what he is saying. That is what he is putting forward to people in Ballarat by saying that he is not prepared to support these amendments. For the government to say, `We want a charter of budget honesty,' and then say, `We are not going to support these perfectly reasonable amendments,' shows that the government is not fair dinkum at all. It shows that this is just a hollow political stunt. What are the other amendments? We talk about the need for a report to be prepared by the Commissioner of Taxation and the Secretary to the Treasury concerning any material threats to the integrity of the tax system. I
would have thought that if you were serious about a charter of budget honesty the public has a right to know what threats there are to the integrity of the tax system. It is pretty hard to run a policy of fiscal responsibility and rectitude if you do not keep one eye firmly on the tax base. But no, the government comes forward and says, `No, we are not interested in that. We don't want to make these things public. We want the Treasurer to be able to turn a blind eye to tax avoidance schemes without having the opposition and the public aware of it.'The amendments which we have put forward are appropriate amendments. They are consistent with support for the charter of budget honesty, which we offered last year and which we just again offered in the House when the vote came forward. We did not oppose it at the second reading and we will not oppose it at the third reading. Let no-one be in any doubt concerning these matters. We support the charter of budget honesty. What we are endeavouring to do with these amendments is to give it some genuine teeth and make it something of genuine value. I was telling the House before about the real commitment of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) to transparency and accountability. I asked him a question on notice about his task force on tax. I asked: Have officers of his Department been assigned to the Prime Minister's task force on tax . . . . . . . . . . . .How many times has the task force met since its formation? He replied: The task force has met on numerous occasions, the particular number of meetings is the business of the Government not the Opposition. I also asked him on notice: Has his office received letters relating to the announcement by the Reserve Bank to sell off two thirds of its gold reserves . . . He replied: Yes. Correspondence to my office is not the business of the Honourable Member for Wills. I asked him: Did he meet with a Japanese trade mission which visited Australia in the second week of September 1997 . . . He replied: Details of my meeting arrangements are not the business of the Member for Wills. When I asked him about media reports concerning taxation discussions by the state Premiers, he said: The Government does not provide a running commentary on media reports. If these things were a matter of personal curiosity, I would have asked him in the corridor. The reason I asked him on the record is that these things are a matter of public interest and the public has a right to know what sorts of meetings he is having and what sort of advice he is receiving. These are simply arrogant answers from a Treasurer who has a contempt for the public's right to know. When he talks about transparency and accountability and the like, he has no commitment to this whatsoever as his answers to questions on notice indicate. There were other questions asked. When I asked him about the ASX and its operations and the integrity of the share market, he said: The Member's question should be directed to the Australian Stock Exchange. He then listed their phone number, as if this was a matter of no concern to the government at all. As to whether publicity concerning the Victorian Premier and the floating of companies on the ASX was affecting confidence in the integrity of the share market, he says, `No, that's not a matter of interest to the government at all. Go talk to the ASX.' These are the responses of a Treasurer who has no commitment to transparency and accountability in government. One of the reasons we need to have the amendments that we are putting forward is to keep the Treasurer honest. If we are talking about budget honesty, that is what we need. (Extension of time granted)The other thing I want to turn to is amendments (8) and (9), which I perhaps did not have the opportunity to canvass sufficiently in the second reading debate. The government's bill seeks to perpetrate a sting on oppositions. What we have said in amendments (8) and (9) is that when the Leader of the Opposition
makes a request for a policy to be costed that has to be authorised by the Prime Minister—we have no problem with that—and the Prime Minister must then notify the responsible departmental secretaries of that authorisation. The secretaries are not authorised to take any action unless the Prime Minister has notified them that the request has been authorised. We go on to say: Nothing in this clause requires the Leader of the Opposition to disclose to the Prime Minister the details of an Opposition policy. Similarly with amendment (9), we say that any request by the Leader of the Opposition should not be disclosed by the secretaries unless the Leader of the Opposition has authorised other people to have access to that information. The reason for this is quite simple. What the government is endeavouring to do with its charter of budget honesty legislation in the present form is to get access to opposition policies and be able to have them costed in circumstances where the opposition has no right to see government policies. This is simply perpetrating a sting on the opposition. It is not about in any sense making governments more honest and accountable. It is about giving them an unfair advantage through having advanced knowledge of opposition policies when there is no reciprocal obligation on them to provide oppositions with their policies. I put it to the parliamentary secretary and to others: why is it, if their motives are as pure as they claim, that they are not prepared to accept these amendments which would make it clear that the opposition is not required to divulge its policies to the government when having them costed? Anyone who is concerned about having some fairness and some balance in relation to these things would see the wisdom and value of the amendments we are putting forward. It may be that official costings of policies indicate that the financial impact of a policy is significantly different from that which an opposition has assumed and, therefore, there might be a case for changing that policy. Even the most competent opposition with the resources available to it does find it difficult
to produce estimates of economic and financial impacts of a lot of measures with anything like the same precision that is possible for a bureaucracy. That is just in the nature of things. I certainly would not put forward the proposition that an opposition should be entitled to an equal share of the resources available to a government. I do not think that is a tenable proposition. But, in these circumstances, the only fair way of dealing with it is that oppositions ought to be able to have policies costed pursuant to this legislation without their being necessarily publicly announced or certainly without their being tipped off to the government. I will conclude my remarks at this point. I think that anyone who has a serious look at the 10 amendments we have moved will understand that they add value to the charter of budget honesty legislation. That is why we have been able to attract support for them from others in the Senate. On that basis, we will be persisting with these amendments both here and in the Senate in order to give this legislation some genuine value and some genuine meaning. | Australia | 1,998 |
I would just like to address a couple of points raised by the opposition spokesman, the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson). One is in regard to amendment No. 1. He asked why it isn't reasonable to have this amendment aimed at the achievement of full employment in Australia, overall economic prosperity, welfare of the Australian people and maintenance or improvement in the value of wages and conditions and the welfare of workers. The fact is that that is already entirely covered in the bill, which is why we are rejecting this. I will just read out clause 4 of the bill: The Government's fiscal policy is to be directed at maintaining the on-going economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia. That covers all those proposed amendments. It is very clear to anybody reading this legislation that the amendment is just redundant; there is no need for it; it is totally covered in that fundamental principle stated in clause 4.
That is also the case for several other of the amendments which are proposed. Amendment No. 2 is covered in clause 12. Amendments Nos 3 and 4 are really about periods of time—and this is just a matter of judgment by different people. In amendment No. 3 where the opposition wants three years we believe that five years is more appropriate and in regard to amendment No. 4 they want five days and we are proposing 10 days. These are matters for judgment. We believe that five years is more appropriate than three and that 10 days is more appropriate than five. In regard to amendment No. 5, that is already in the bill just like amendments Nos 1 and 2. They are already covered. With regard to amendments 6, 7, 8 and 9 which have recently been referred to in debate: first, these changes are inconsistent with clause 31; second, there is a loss of transparency; and, third, it goes against the general conventions and traditions of the Westminster system that departments of the government do not take directions from the opposition. What the opposition wants to do for the first time ever is to be able to say to Treasury and Finance, `Please do these costings on policies which are not announced to the Australian people,' therefore using up the time and effort of officers in Treasury and Finance. The traditional position has always been that the government of the day, elected by the people of Australia, are then to give directions to the departments. We believe that long-held tradition in the Westminster system on how governments run should be maintained. It works well and, quite frankly, the other would become quite impracticable. So we reject that. With regard to amendment No. 10, that is covered in subclause 10(1). I just say to the opposition that the reasons are very clear from the government, based on a good analysis of the amendments which have been put. As I said, four of those amendments are already covered in the legislation—I pointed out one just to illustrate the point very clearly. Two others are a matter of judgment and the other four amendments, 6 to 9, are inconsistent with
one of the clauses, clause 31. We believe it leads to loss of transparency in those areas and it also breaks with the conventions of the Westminster system in regard to government and departments. | Australia | 1,998 |
The House divided. 0AYESAdams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.0NOESAbbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Costello, P. H.Dondas, N. M. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.PAIRSBeazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Macklin, J. L. Sullivan, K. J.Smith, S. F. Downer, A. J. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative. | Australia | 1,998 |
The opposition is generally supportive of the content of the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997. There is one area where the opposition has some concerns. I will say a bit more about that later. But I am pleased to say that the government and the opposition are continuing some constructive talks on that particular issue. I will, first of all, turn to the detail of the legislation and explain the reasons why the opposition will not be opposing the legislation. This legislation makes a whole series of changes to the health insurance legislation. This legislation seeks to bring certain insurance products, designed to avoid the regulatory framework for health insurance funds, within the regulatory framework for health insurance funds. I understand the aim here is to ensure that these insurance products do not threaten the concept of community rating, which is an issue which we remain strongly supportive of. In addition, there are clauses in the legislation which seek to ensure that there is further
progress made in the need for agreements between the health funds, private hospitals and doctors. There has been some improvement made in one private hospital in Australia—and that is at Melbourne Private. I would like to commend the owners of Melbourne Private on the great deal of work they have put in to trying to ensure that their medical practitioners can sit down and discuss in as rational a manner as possible the best way to ensure that the rights of doctors are respected and, more particularly, that patients are given as much sensible information as possible about their likely out-of-pocket expenses and, where possible, that there are minimal gaps. I think that is a step forward. While I accept that the current Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) has claimed credit for this breakthrough, usually any difficulties the government has in these agreements with doctors are put down to being a legacy of the Lawrence legislation. I am not sure that the Lawrence legislation gets the credit for this agreement at Melbourne Private. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services (Ms Worth) shaking her head at this attempt on my part to claim some vague link between the agreement at Melbourne Private and the clauses of the Lawrence legislation. I am sure she cannot deny that. | Australia | 1,998 |
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development at the table says that he is surprised I would want to be linked to the Lawrence legislation. The fact that his government has not amended the principles of the Lawrence legislation demonstrates that they are as committed to the Lawrence legislation as we were when we occupied the treasury bench. If you do not believe that just read some of the AMA's literature on this very issue. The agreement at Melbourne Private has been a step forward. This legislation seeks to place beyond doubt any question about the legality of the agreements that have been made at Melbourne Private. It also seeks to ensure that where agreements are reached
between health insurers, hospitals and practitioners these are available for inspection by any person and require health insurers and hospitals who make agreements with practitioners to give an undertaking that the general professional freedom of the practitioner will be maintained. That is also something we welcome. I also understand we have included in the legislation this notion of authorised billing agents, which is something we think is worth supporting. In addition to some changes to the make-up of PHIAC—the Private Health Insurance Administration Council—the government is seeking to extend the waiting period for obstetrics from nine months to 12 months. This is an attempt by the government to ensure that the so-called hit and run members of private health funds cannot hit quite as quickly and cannot run quite so quickly. By increasing the waiting period for obstetrics rebates from nine months to 12 months it will, of course, still be possible to try to plan these matters, but it will be a 12-month waiting period rather than nine months. The government is also proposing a renaming of the Private Health Insurance Complaints Commissioner. That person is to become the Private Health Ombudsman. We have sought, and been given, some assurances about the ombudsman having the power to make regular reports—quarterly reports is, I think, the current practice. As long as that continues to ensure that the new Private Health Ombudsman has the opportunity to place issues in the public arena if he or she is concerned about any particular issue, that is something which, again, we think is a step forward. The legislation also seeks to remove some of the current legislative impediments to for-profit organisations applying for registration as health funds. Given that we have several large for-profit players in health insurance currently, such as National Mutual and SGIO, the opposition does not believe the government's amendments in this area are unwarranted, so we will not be opposing them. The one area where we have some concerns is in the clauses of the legislation that seek to
remove the requirement of health funds to cover the first 35 days of private hospital stay at the acute rate where patients may be better suited to obtaining residency in a nursing home. Our concern is that we do not want to see people who should be residents of nursing homes, but who cannot get into nursing homes for whatever reason, admitted to a private hospital and, through no fault of their own, hit with a very large bill. The health funds, of course, have some merit in their argument that they should not be asked to pay an acute care rate for someone in a private hospital if they do not need acute care. Admittedly that person's health might be so frail and have suffered so much that they may need the 24-hour care and attention that is provided in a nursing home, but they may not be so sick that they need hospital admission for acute care. The health funds argue that it is unfair for them to be expected to meet the difference between the nursing home subsidy and the acute care rate. The difficulty I have is that if a person is in such a circumstance, especially in a rural or provincial area where it is often difficult to get access to a nursing home in that area, who is going to be worse off? If it is not the health fund, does that mean it is going to be the patient concerned or their family? We all know that the cost of an acute care bed in a private hospital is quite enormous, and it would only take a short period in such a private hospital before a person or their family is up for a very large bill of thousands of dollars. When we requested briefings from the government on the legislation, Dr Wooldridge, as usual, was very cooperative in providing those briefings. When this concern was raised, the government agreed to enter into discussions with the opposition about that. I think it would be fair to say that discussions are continuing. We will not hold up passage of the bill through the House of Representatives but, before it comes to a final vote in the Senate, we would hope to conclude those discussions. I think that might be the best way to categorise that particular issue at the moment. Our concern remains making sure we get the right balance between protect
ing the interests of the patients and their families who might be admitted to a private hospital when they do not need acute care. We certainly do not want them hit with unfair retrospective bills. But, even if bills are not retrospective, we want to make sure that any bills people do receive do not cause distress or treat them unfairly. This leads me to make some general comments about private health insurance. I begin this element of my contribution by reminding the House that before the last election the government promised to make health insurance more affordable for ordinary Australians. If there are any people in the gallery this morning who have private health insurance, I am sure they do not need me to tell them that health insurance today is a lot less affordable than health insurance was on the day John Howard, the member for Bennelong, was elected as Prime Minister of Australia. Before the last election, the government promised lower premiums which they said would increase membership and take the pressure off our public hospital system. What have we seen? Premiums have gone through the roof and membership has gone through the floor. Our public hospital system has not only been hit because of the decline in private health insurance but we have also seen this government cut federal funding for public hospitals by $800 million. This has increased the pressure on public hospitals. There are parts of Australia where our public hospital system is in crisis because of these federal funding cuts and cuts by various conservative state governments as well. On Monday of this week, about five million Australians woke up to discover that the cost of their health insurance was increasing by up to $200 for families. That is going to swallow the benefit of the remainder of any other portion of the tax rebate that has not yet been swallowed by premium increases. Most of the benefit of that tax rebate has already been swallowed by premium increases. The latest increase, which hits some older Australians with premium increases of up to 15 per cent, is simply going to force more people to leave private health insurance. Knowing that this tidal wave of increases was to be announced last Monday, we had an attempt at a bit of spin doctoring by the Prime Minister the previous week. The member for Bennelong gave an exclusive interview to the Sydney Morning Herald. The message in that interview was that the Prime Minister admitted that his health policy had been a flop and attempted to claim that the reason his policy had flopped was that the former government had not taken action seven years ago. That is interesting because at the last election the Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong, John Howard, promised that by the year 2000 he would get private health insurance membership coverage up to 40 per cent of the population. The day he gave that promise, private health insurance membership was about 35 per cent. So he was promising to raise it from 35 per cent to 40 per cent by the year 2000. The day the Prime Minister made that statement he knew what had happened during the years of the Labor government. He has failed to increase the level of private health insurance from 35 per cent to 40 per cent—in fact, it has gone from 35 per cent to 31.6 per cent. He cannot now claim that the reason his policy has flopped is that the Labor government did not take some particular action. He knew everything we did, line by line, on the day he made that promise that he would get private health insurance up from 35 per cent to 40 per cent. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) asked the Prime Minister a few days ago whether he stood by that target of 40 per cent by the year 2000, we could not get any answer at all from the Prime Minister, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you are as disappointed as I was that we could not get the Prime Minister to announce whether he stood by that 40 per cent commitment. You can understand why the Prime Minister is feeling frustrated. He spent $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money on this tax rebate to increase the level of private health insurance, and not only has it failed to go from 35 per cent to 40 per cent but it has dropped from 35 per cent to 31.6 per cent. That is why we in the opposition are forced to agree with Jeff Kennett when he predicted,
a year ago, that this was money down the drain. It is why Richard Court was reported in yesterday's papers as saying that this tax rebate policy is a dud. We have had the AMA saying that the money would have been better spent directly on patient care. We even had the Industry Commission saying that it was poor value for money. So Richard Court, Liberal Premier of Western Australia; Jeff Kennett, Liberal Premier of Victoria; the AMA—not exactly a branch of the Labor Party; and the Industry Commission, the economic rationalists—again not exactly a sub-branch of the Labor Party; are all saying that this policy has been a complete and utter lemon. It is a shrinking lemon that is having less and less impact as each day goes by. Yet the government is not prepared to tell us what alternatives it is looking at as this crisis deepens. The government says that there are a few options on the agenda. A couple of the press leaks say that the government is looking at dropping the threshold at which the Medicare levy surcharge is payable. When the Medicare levy surcharge was announced on budget night in August 1996 the current Minister for Health and Family Services put out a press release claiming that this alone would increase the level of private health insurance membership by 1.5 per cent. On Monday night, though, Dr Wooldridge deliberately deceived the viewers of the 7.30 Report when he denied that he used those very words in his own press release. I am sure the minister would love me to remind him of that particular press release. On budget night 1996 he said: High income earners will be asked to pay a Medicare Levy surcharge if they do not have private health insurance. This is Dr Wooldridge on budget night 1996.We are expecting about 70,000 high-earning single people and 65,000 couples and families to join health funds as a result of this measure. This alone would increase the participation rate by 1.5 percentage points. Dr Wooldridge on budget night also put his name to the Department of Health and Family Services portfolio budget statements. His signature is there. I am sure it is familiar to
you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Both Dr Wooldridge and Judi Moylan have signed it: Dear Mr Speaker,We hereby submit to Parliament the 1996-97 Portfolio Budget Statements for the Health and Family Services Portfolio. And buried away on page 145 it says, on the tax rebate: The funding estimates are based upon the assumption that the coverage of private health insurance will increase from 32 per cent of the population (expected at 1 July 1997) to 34 per cent in 1997-98.So we have Dr Wooldridge in a document tabled in this House, with his own signature on it, committing to an increase from 32 per cent to 34 per cent coverage of private health insurance because of the tax rebate. We also have his press release, which I have here. Under his own letterhead we have Dr Wooldridge saying that he will get a 1.5 per cent increase just from the Medicare levy surcharge. Yet Dr Wooldridge claims in this House that he has never committed himself by saying that the Medicare levy surcharge would increase the level of private health insurance to any particular target. John Howard had a target of 40 per cent; Dr Wooldridge had a target of raising it by 2 per cent because of the tax rebate and another 1.5 per cent from the Medicare levy surcharge. So Dr Wooldridge is locked in. He has predicted the target of 35.5 per cent, yet we are down to 31.6 per cent. My expectation is that, as a result of the latest tidal wave of health insurance premium increases this government has approved, there will be a further decline in private health insurance. There is no way in the world that the government is going to meet those targets of 35.5 per cent or 40 per cent. At the end of the day you have to ask: what alternatives are the government considering? We know that there is a budget being prepared for next May and one of the items on the agenda for that budget, according to the press speculation, is a lowering of the threshold at which that Medicare levy surcharge is payable. At the moment if a single person earns more than $50,000 or if a family earns more than $100,000 and they do not have
private health insurance they are hit with the additional one per cent Medicare levy surcharge. Dr Wooldridge predicted in 1996— | Australia | 1,998 |
Dr Wooldridge, the minister for health, stated that he would conduct six months of modelling. He then said that he would draft some legislation and have it in the parliament within six months. That was 12 months ago. We have a minister of the Crown with the biggest crisis on his plate. The Australian public expected the government to address this issue because it was the centrepiece of their policy at the last election—yet the government has let 18 months go by with nothing to show for it. Is it any wonder the government is starting to feel the force of the blowtorch on the Prime Minister's belly? No wonder he tried to do a bit of spin doctoring last week. The government is realising it is under so much pressure because of the failure of the health insurance tax rebate. The important thing about lifetime community rating is that it is basically going to mean that long-term, older members of health funds will get cheaper premiums than short-term, older members of health funds. What will be crucial in the introduction of lifetime community rating will be the transitional provisions that are provided. If the government does what it is committed to in principle and heads down the path of lifetime community rating, it will need to make sure that people understand how much time they will be given to make their mind up on whether they want to join a health fund. You could get a regime introduced that leaves older Australians in a very difficult position where they cannot afford to take out private health insurance. Admittedly, it might be cheaper for younger Australians to take out private health insurance but many young people do not have a lot of spare cash when they are in their twenties and are purchasing a house and raising children. We also want to make sure that, if the government goes down the path of lifetime community rating, the modelling is
released for a full public debate before the community locks in any lifetime community rating regime. The trouble is that we do not know what the minister for health is going to do. We do not know what has happened since that in-principle agreement was announced just on a year ago. We do not know what the Prime Minister is going to do, having looked at this issue for 18 months, held the public inquiry and having had his minister for health announce the government's approval in principle for the major recommendation of the inquiry—a year goes by and nothing happens. You certainly would not want to be holding your breath for this government to make any decisions about what it is going to do about private health insurance. While that is happening, we have the pressure building on public hospitals. This government, through its federal funding cutbacks, has slashed $800 million to public hospitals. It has abolished the Commonwealth dental health program and there have been massive cuts in federal funding for the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. All these cuts to public health were needed to fund the tax rebate policy. Jeff Kennett said that it has been money down the drain; Richard Court said that it was a dud; the AMA said that the money would have been better spent directly on patient care; the Industry Commission said that it was not good value for money. All of these reasons make us ask: why did the government go down this path? Why did the government cut the funding for the public hospital system, the dental program and the pharmaceutical scheme for this health insurance tax rebate policy, which has been a flop? We on this side of the House believe that public hospitals should be the first priority for federal and state governments right now. While I do not often agree with the AMA, I note that the AMA has been arguing and lobbying quite strongly for federal and state governments to increase their commitment to the public hospital system. That is something that Liberal and Labor governments need to address urgently. Unfortunately, there is a complete stalemate in the current negotiations between the federal Liberal government and
the Liberal and Labor state and territory governments, with the exception of the ACT government. This matter is going to come to a head on the 16th of this month—less than two weeks away—when the minister for health has said that he will start doling out $4 million a week to any state or territory that has signed his new Medicare agreements. At the moment it looks like that will be only the ACT and, unless the minister blinks, that means that $4 million a week will go to the ACT government's health care system. If you are Kate Carnell, I am sure you will bank those cheques and then start spending the money on the ACT health system as soon as you can—a substantial increase in the funding going to the ACT health care system. Some people have already alleged that the ACT health care system has a fair bit of money spent on it. There was a certain allegation about one doctor's behaviour in an ACT hospital that might lead people to reach that conclusion. I am referring to the dog that was treated in one of the hospitals here. If Kate Carnell is going to get $4 million a week, I am sure there will be enough money not just to treat all of the human beings in the ACT but every dog, cat and pigeon. The tragedy will be that if the Minister for Health and Family Services proceeds down that path and he is unable to buy out any of the state ministers for health it will mean that public hospitals in every state of Australia and the Northern Territory will remain in crisis while a massive flow of resources will go into the Canberra hospital system. I do not think that is sustainable, and I do not think the Minister for Health and Family Services will be able to maintain that artificial and unfair distribution of federal funding for public hospitals for more than a week or two. I think the minister realises he has a problem coming in the next two weeks because of that. What the Minister for Health and Family Services has really done is offer 30 pieces of silver to any state minister for health who will sell out and agree to take less money for their hospital system than they know they really need. That is why Rob Knowles, the Victorian Minister for Health, is saying that the
minister's offer is inadequate. That is why Dean Brown, the South Australian Minister for Human Services, is saying that the minister's offer is inadequate. That is why all the other Labor and Liberal state ministers for health are making it clear that this federal government should be showing a more determined commitment to providing resources for the public hospital system right around Australia. It is going to be crucial that the government reaches a decision on this sooner rather than later and probably before 16 March, before this crisis comes to a head and we see the ridiculous situation of a massive sum of money being handed over to Kate Carnell and the ACT while the crisis gets worse in every other state around Australia. Returning to the detail of the legislation before us, the opposition has no objections to the major items contained in the legislation. We remain concerned about the impact of the change on the requirement of health funds to automatically fund the first 35 days of private hospital stays at the acute rate. We are willing to be as constructive on that as we have been on private health insurance and all the other issues we debate in this parliament, and we hope we can reach an agreement on that before it is finalised in the other chamber. | Australia | 1,998 |
I have prepared some notes to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 and speak specifically to what the bill is intending to do. Before I do so I would like to comment on a couple of things that the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) has just said. The only thing that is really letting us down is not the government of Australia but our political system. There is an inherent lack of honesty in the debate on health policy in Australia. The reason it occurs is that government cannot reasonably put to the Australian people a range of options that need to be considered in relation to health care because the opposition of the day will do everything it can to create a sense of insecurity and fear in the community. Whilst this government, for the first time in the 13 years of the previous government and the two years we have been in government, is
doing everything it possibly can to maintain affordable access for high risk and low income individuals to the private sector, the opposition is doing everything it possibly can to frustrate us in achieving that task. It is a pity that in the recent people's Constitutional Convention, which I understand cost us in the vicinity of $45 million, the opposition was not joining with some of us on this side to suggest we should have a people's constitutional convention to look at how he govern ourselves, state-Commonwealth relations, terms of government and many of the things that go to the very heart of why we cannot easily negotiate Australian hospital financing agreements. If the member for Dobell also had some corporate memory in health, he would remember that when Brian Howe was the minister for health in 1992 and then leading up to the election in 1993 he was offering considerable incentives to the states to sign up before the election in March 1993. In fact, in December 1992 he offered New South Wales, as I recall, some $300 million. I made the point in speaking to the question of private health insurance in previous debates and matters of public importance that the regulatory environment in which private health insurers work is just as important to the affordability of their products as the government's carrot and stick approach through rebates on the one hand to low and middle income earners and then the Medicare surcharge on high income earners without private insurance on the other. The member for Dobell argues that the Medicare surcharge, one per cent on couples earning above $100,000 a year or on singles earning above $50,000, has not worked when in fact the rate of decline in private health insurance is the lowest that it has been in 10 years. We had a 0.1 per cent increase in the September quarter last year. The point the member for Dobell fails to appreciate is that those high income earners who do not take out private health insurance have to make a higher contribution to Medicare. I would have thought that would be something that all sensible people would support. In that context, it ought to be remem
bered that when Graham Richardson was the minister for health he said that the Labor Party has never believed in a flat tax, which is what the Medicare levy is, so why does it have a problem with people in higher income groups making a greater contribution to the financing of health care? If you were to follow the member for Dobell's argument to its logical conclusion, you would be pleased if you were a Labor Party person that people in high income groups were not taking out private insurance because the money would be going directly into Medicare into which, as I understand from what he said, he would prefer to see the money going, instead of trying to subsidise 800,000 pensioners who are struggling to keep their private health insurance. The central objective of this bill is to make private health insurance more attractive to consumers by making it better value for money. At 30 June 1983, some 63.6 per cent of the population had private health insurance and, as we are aware, at the end of the December quarter it was 31.6 per cent, although the rate of decline over the last two years has been the lowest, as I say, in a decade. This is a decline to which politically and financially the Hawke and Keating governments contributed, and again this is the hypocrisy of the political process and the way it is letting us down. If you were sitting in the gallery and you heard the member for Dobell speak, you would perhaps be somewhat critical of what the government is doing or be frustrated that we are not having more success perhaps than we are having. But in actual fact, when the member for Dobell was in government himself, his Prime Minister, Mr Keating, in March 1993 told the Australian people, at a time when he was reported to be worth something like $5 million—I certainly know I will never earn that in politics—that they did not need private health insurance. He told people that they could rely on Medicare. In other words, he was saying, `Don't bother having it.' Mr Howe, when he was the health minister, said in April 1992, `Private health insurance makes an insignificant contribution to health financing in Australia,' although at
the time private health insurance was raising something like $3 billion a year and the Medicare levy was raising only $2.5 billion. The Hawke-Keating governments withdrew every subsidy that was available to the industry. In 1987 it started withdrawing its contribution to the reinsurance costs, which was the money available to spread the risk of insuring older people over the age of 65. It withdrew its private hospital bed day subsidy, it forced the private health insurance funds to pay 25 per cent of the Medicare benefit schedule fee and it forced the funds to put prostheses on basic insurance tables. Then, in those 1992-93 agreements that Mr Howe was negotiating, it actually locked in a clause that penalised states for having a high number of privately insured hospital beds. So the agreements with the states actually gave people disincentives for having privately insured patients. That initiated one of the most inflationary impacts on private health insurance today, of forcing people who did have private health insurance, having paid their Medicare levy, having paid their taxes and then wanting to go into a public hospital, back into private hospitals where, of course, the cost for insurers, which they had to fully pay for, had an inflationary impact on premiums. The then Minister for Health, Graham Richardson, proposed in 1993 a system for contracting between hospitals, doctors and insurers. This subsequently took effect in 1995 when the member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence), as Richardson's successor, oversaw passage of the Health Legislation Amendment Act 1995 dealing with private health insurance reform. In some quarters it was known as the Lawrence managed care legislation. This emanated from the fact that, as it allowed for hospital purchaser-provider agreements, medical purchaser-provider agreements and practitioner agreements, it was seen by the medical profession to facilitate a change in the nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Doctors, in having contractual obligations to insurers, would be vulnerable to having their clinical judgment adversely influenced by the entity or the insurer with whom they would then have a contract. Back in January 1994, when then Minister Richardson had promoted far more draconian measures, as President of the Australian Medical Association I convened a two-day summit—though I hate that term—the second day of which involved a lockup with every professional medical and surgical college, association and organisation in the country, which then agreed to two critical concepts. They agreed at that meeting to the concept of aggregated billing—a model for pooling all of the accounts that would be generated by doctors for services provided to patients. They also agreed to informed financial consent: a requirement, if necessary supported in legislation, that would require doctors as far as practicable to explain all of the charges that a patient would face when they went into the private system. I must say on that point that, whilst I have dealt with some complaints about doctors' fees over the years, I have never had to deal with a complaint from a patient about a doctor's fee when the patient did not know what the charge was going to be before they went into the system. The member for Fremantle assumed the health ministry two months later, in March 1994. She let those critical propositions lie dormant, and thus her current criticism of the Prime Minister's leadership I find facile at best. We lost more than three years. We also lost private health fund members at the rate of 800 a day. In the lead-up to the debate on the 1995 Health Legislation Amendment Bill, the AMA put forward some 48 amendments, three of which are now given effect by this bill. The first is that schedule 8 will allow the assignment of Medicare payments for in-hospital medical treatment by the patient to another party as part of simplified billing arrangements. We now have either commenced or intend to commence eight trials involving 20,000 privately insured patients across the country, through New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, examining models for both aggregation and simplification of billing systems and also for informed financial consent. That is almost four years after the medical profession actually agreed to having it done, because when in government the member for Fremantle I understand had
her mind on other things. But basically the government did not do anything about it; it was a lost opportunity. It has always been a ridiculous situation to have required claims to be made from both the Medicare office and the private insurer. In allowing for a single billing agency to process the necessary multitude of accounts, the medical profession, insurers, hospitals and government are taking a significant step forward. The second thing is that schedule 3 requires the health funds to make available to any person who requests it copies of hospital purchaser-provider agreements and medical purchaser-provider agreements that the organisation has entered into and copies of the practitioner agreements. Again, this is something that when I was President of the AMA we strongly supported. Copies made available must have deleted from them any information relating to amounts payable and any personal information. This is a critical measure, as it prevents the one or two avaricious doctors out there secretly negotiating arrangements from a position of significant market power, secure in the knowledge that such information would not subsequently be disclosed. The third thing that the bill does, critically, is that contracts offered by health funds or hospitals to doctors must include an undertaking to maintain the general professional freedom of doctors to identify the appropriate treatment for their patients within the scope of accepted clinical practice. Whether or not this measure of enshrining clinical independence in law persuades an increasing number of doctors to enter into contractual arrangements remains to be seen. However, when taken in the context of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 in schedule 3, which will allow health funds for the first time to pay medical benefits above the current level of the Medicare benefit schedule, it is likely that it will. To access higher levels of insurance benefit on behalf of their patients, doctors would be required to enter into practitioner agreements with private hospitals. The opposition of the medical profession to contracts is something that those familiar with only the usual commercial transactions of day-to-day life would perhaps have difficulty understanding. It
relates to what is at the heart of medical professionalism, and that is a concept known as umbirima fides: the requirement of a doctor to always act in the utmost good faith; to place the interests of the individual patient before all others, including the doctor's own interests. In the private non-salaried sector, the profession's concerns, borne out by the behaviour of American health maintenance organisations, are that a third party—in this case, the insurer, who will be powerfully motivated to limit the clinical freedoms of the doctor to treat a patient to the best of his or her ability—having a contractual commitment with a doctor, may interfere in some way with the freedom that the doctor ought to have to do the best for the patient. Doctors have been concerned about pressure from insurance companies to reduce lengths of stay; to interfere with the admission of psychiatric and rehabilitation patients, for example; and to limit expenditure on treatments, prostheses and surgical procedures. What the government is attempting to do with this bill though is to guarantee the clinical independence of doctors from the cost containing activities and pressures of insurance companies. Despite this, I recognise that a significant body of the profession will not be reassured, preferring instead that the best traditions of the individual doctor-patient relationship be exclusively maintained, and the patient, if not feeling the service to be of a satisfactory standard, reserve the right to either pay or not pay for the service. The world has changed enormously since leaders in the profession such as my friend and colleague Dr Bruce Shepherd, in another life, and Senator John Herron, in this one, commenced their respective surgical practices. We have seen laparoscopic surgery, organ transplantation, computer technology and electronic transfers of both information and of money. We now live in a world of plastic money. We also live in a world where medicine is driven to a large extent by the threat of medical litigation. Throughout my life I have been privileged to hear certain people speak and, when they have spoken, it has changed the way I have
thought. I heard three critical speeches in the four years before assuming the presidency of the Australian Medical Association. One of them was at the end of May 1990 at the annual dinner for the AMA's national conference, and it was delivered by Professor David Penington. It was subsequently published in the 6 June 1990 edition of the Medical Journal of Australia. Professor Penington's address was about the role of professions in modern society. I saw it as a challenge to the medical profession to rediscover not only some of its social obligations to the community but also its responsibility to engage in public debate, and to do so in a way that is relevant to modern society, that suits the needs of people who live in a modern world but that retains some of the core values upon which the best traditions of the profession were built. Professor Penington changed the way I thought that night, and I moulded a lot of my leadership on what he had said. In a world of ignorance and intolerance of what were once revered professional values, the challenges for the medical profession are these: to recognise the real problems facing a society in need of health care at an affordable price; to enunciate the principles upon which doctors should offer services to the community; to ensure that governments protect the right of doctors to uphold their fiduciary obligations—which is what this bill does; to provide a modern and relevant framework for the clinical and commercial delivery of services; and to demonstrate a preparedness to fight, if necessary, for core values, the denunciation of which would diminish the standards of care that may be offered to sick individuals who are, by definition, quite vulnerable. For its part, government, apart from containing costs and legislating to protect minimum standards and affordability, must conduct its relationship with doctors in a constructive, balanced and sober manner. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 sets a framework for such arrangements, none of which is coercive. I would just say to the House that, when I had the privilege to lead the Australian Medical Association—which was not the easiest task,
and I certainly did agree with the member for Dobell when he said that it was not a sub-branch of the ALP—I continually reminded the doctors that governments are natural predators of things that the medical profession holds dear. It is a very difficult thing to go from being a medical practitioner, as the minister has done, as I have done and also as the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (Senator Herron) has done. But the problem is that what governments are trying to do inevitably will bring them into conflict with those core values of the profession where each doctor sees his or her first and foremost responsibility as putting the best interests of the patient first. And what the profession also has to understand is that, in a world where, in this case, our government this year will spend an estimated $20.6 billion on health, we have an obligation to society as a group—as does the profession—to see that resources are spent where they are best needed, where they will deliver the best outcomes for the resources we make available to them. One of the challenges that the government has, and which the profession shares with us, is in allocating resources—in deciding where we are going to put things. I think the profession, in interpreting and understanding that concept of umbirima fides, which David Penington referred to in 1990, is that, when you fail to participate in the discussion of the allocation of resources, by definition you are allowing a decision about rationing to be made by the worst possible of people—and that is, politicians and public servants. You cannot allow us alone to make these decisions. I challenge the medical profession to engage the government in a constructive way and also the government, of course, to uphold its responsibilities as I have broadly outlined to the House. I commend the bill to the House. I long for the day when there will be a debate in Australia about the two things that are killing private health insurance: free public hospitals; and community rating, as it is currently structured. I also long for the day when the opposition say to us, `We want to help you keep people in private health insurance. How
can we best support you?' But I will not hold my breath, waiting. | Australia | 1,998 |
The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 which we are dealing with today does, of course, have context. It does not just have the context in the bill being brought forward by the Howard coalition government and being presented by the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) just after they have finished two years of government; it has a wider context. That wider context is primarily historical but it is also an ideological context—a context based upon the central philosophical tenets of, on the one side, the Australian Labor Party and, on the other side, the federal coalition in regard to health care provision and how that should best be attained. There is an attempt in the legislation to again address aspects of the problem that we currently have with the number of people taking up private health insurance—those numbers having been driven down to 31.6 per cent of those people eligible to join—and to encourage more people to go into the private health funds. Dr Wooldridge's attempts here are not his first attempts. He has had other attempts previously, and the Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), in joining with him, has outlined in the past—prior to the last election—what this coalition government would do when it came to power about fixing the problem of not enough people being in private health insurance. I note that the other day in question time, when dealing with these matters, the member for Bennelong indicated that, in late 1982-83, private health coverage in Australia was 61 per cent—a very high figure. In fact, shortly after, in June 1983, it had risen to about 63.8 per cent. He made the point that, during the 13-year period of the Labor government, we had seen a steady decline in the number of people in private insurance. He hammered home the point that, under the Fraser government, there was an extremely high level of coverage, and that all was well in the world. There is a historical basis to the reason why 61 per cent of the people had private health cover in 1982-83. There is a very simple basis
for that. When Malcolm Fraser came to power in 1975, he outlined his promise and his intent that the Medibank system, introduced by Gough Whitlam's government, would be left alone—people accepted it; it would be left alone. Over the seven-year period of the Fraser government, that Medibank system was dislocated, fragmented, distorted and chopped into very small, fragmented pieces. Despite the fact that he had promised that nothing would be done to Medibank, steps were made to destroy public health provision through the Medibank system. One of those steps was to deny Medibank easy coverage in the provision of health funds in the private area. The Fraser government argued that Medibank had a monopoly on public health cover. They were in an advantageous position in having a broad geographical spread across this continent and being able to provide Medicare rebates as well as private health cover through Medibank Private in the same office. This was a disincentive to other private providers such as HCF and MBF; it was a monopolistic practice that had to be sorted out. They proceeded to sort it out and demanded that Medibank Private move off to their own premises and that they not be in a position where they could use the system to their advantage and use their geographical spread to the disadvantage of the other funds. The other funds had been in a pre-eminent position in Australia prior to 1972—there was wide health coverage for private individuals. The Menzian system, carried through under Prime Ministers Holt, Gordon and McMahon, was the system that the member for Bennelong, the current Prime Minister John Howard, joined at the age of 15 or 16—as outlined in a recent article by Michael Millett. When he paid his shillings into private insurance, starting in 1955, that was the dominant system. That system relied not only on private hospitals and private doctors providing services but also on a 19th century notion of medical provision. That links in wonderfully well with the master-servant relationship that is intimately enshrined in the political thought of the Liberal and National parties of Australia. The master-servant approach that we see being worked out by the Minister for Work
place Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) to those of the elite who can provide services and who should run the whole show in this country also operated in the medical profession. We had a recent reminder of that in the doctors strike during the period of the Hawke-Keating governments. | Australia | 1,998 |
Certainly, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point is utterly relevant. As I indicated at the start, there is a historical context. I was speaking about how private health insurance operated during the Menzies period of government. When Whitlam came to government he brought in Medibank. There was public provision under Medibank and, correspondingly, there was also a severe difficulty for the private health funds, whose subsidies were taken away by that Whitlam government. The number of people in private health care, who had private health insurance, during that period of time decreased. On coming to government, the Fraser government replaced the Medibank system with private health provision. When this government came to office it promised—crossed its heart and hoped to die—that it would not be touching the Medicare system, as it promised in the 1993 election, which gave absolute endorsement of the Medicare system. However, the emphasis of this government has been on fixing the problem of private health funds and private health insurance. We still do not have a Medicare agreement which has been signed by the Minister for Health and Family Services and which wraps up the situation for the states, because the states have refused to sign up to that. In the two years since this government came to power, the funds available to the public hospitals of Australia have been dramatically cut. In that same time, $1.7 billion worth of funds has gone into attempting to shore up private health insurers. That is the connection. The connection is clear and direct. So the historical allusions are not
simply so that I can wander off into times past; they directly relate to the attitudes of the various parties on health provision and how it should be funded. The current Medicare system—reborn during the Hawke-Keating period to replace Medibank, which was destroyed over a seven-year period in favour of private health fund provision—is now under attack and has been for the last two years while this government concentrates on the private health funds and their insurance. Quite simply, we have a situation where the first steps, as taken during the Fraser period, have already been taken by this government in past budgets to whittle away the extent and the power of the Medicare system. The Minister for Health and Family Services knew full well when he brought in his measure in the budget that he would knock back in the bulk-billing area the amount of rebate available to general practitioners in Australia. So, instead of getting an 85 per cent rebate of the scheduled fee, in this coalition government's budget which was passed by legislation that was changed to a 75 per cent rebate of the scheduled fee. It took a long campaign to finally get support for bulk-billing, but eventually a large number of doctors in Australia supported it and its ease in terms of settling their debt problems. But a lot of those doctors have already started to walk out of the bulk-billing system. It was predicted by those doctors and by the Australian Labor Party that a reduction in that rebate from 85 per cent to 75 per cent would have an effect on the efficiency with which doctors were going to run their practices and on their profit situation. They have been forced to walk out of the bulk-billing system, which is key to the Medicare system. | Australia | 1,998 |
We already have the result where doctors are walking out of the bulk-billing system, which is a central part of the Medicare system. The corollary of that is that people going to see those doctors will pay more and effectively will be making co-payments. Firstly, we have a situation where, in part, that plank that is in Medicare has been whittled away as one step in that direction. Secondly, the funds available to the public hospitals in Australia have been dramatically cut and an adequate Medicare agreement between the federal government and the states has not yet been signed, because all the states have said that it is not possible to run the public hospital system adequately and to provide care for people if the funds are not directly and readily available. The minister for health argues that he will not provide more funds, because the states will simply cost shift. He has pinned what he sees as the key problems on the fact that fewer people have taken out private health insurance and lots more people are wandering out of the system. One of the ways in which to address that, promised by this coalition government and then delivered, was to pay people through tax rebates. If people had private health cover, they would not be penalised and would not have an extra percentage added to their Medicare levy. That is one key element that he put in place prior to this bill which seeks to build on that. The percentage of people in private health funds has been driven down to 31.6 per cent. The problem is still there; it is still corrosive. We have to look at the effectiveness of that and the effectiveness of the measures being put forward in this bill. It raises a number of serious questions. We are in agreement with parts of the bill, as the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) outlined, but there are key areas that are still under debate.
One of the key areas relates to the situation of people who are, or should be, in nursing home care and who are admitted to private hospitals under the current legislation, where the first 35 days of care are paid at the acute rate. This bill makes a fundamental change to that. It says that from day one they can pay at the nursing home type rate. As a corollary of that, for people who are designated to be not in acute care but in nursing home type care, instead of having 35 days in which to sort their medical situation out and to tempt people to get into nursing home care, where the funds are being paid at the acute rate, we are looking at hospitals dealing with the nursing home type rate, which is much lower. That nursing home rate has a corollary—that out-of-pocket expenses could be directed towards those nursing home type patients in those hospitals. The response of a number of people looking at this situation is to argue that that is unfair. Indeed, in the background papers on this bill provided by the Department of the Parliamentary Library, we see this argument from the Australian Private Hospitals Association on page 4. That association:opposes this proposal unless the NHTP benefit is significantly increased, preferably to the level of the default benefit ($210 per day). Individual funds and hospitals could negotiate different rates in their contracts where appropriate. It is not just the Australian Private Hospitals Association that is concerned about this measure, as all of those potential patients should be concerned about that measure because of the on-costs that they will have to absorb. The Australian Catholic Health Care Association, in their submission to the Industry Commission inquiry into private health insurance, argued that they:"strongly endorsed" the present system noting that "private hospitals have been called on to fill the aged services gap left through the inadequate resourcing of the aged care system".So both of those entities have clearly argued that there is a real problem with what is in this legislation concerning those people going into private hospitals and having the protection of 35 days where they would be in there under acute care being whipped away from day one. The payout would be at the nursing home type payment rate and, therefore, out-
of-pocket and extra expenses could roll up against those people who are in that situation. I understand that there are currently negotiations between the minister for health and the parties in relation to this matter. It is my hope that a resolution of that and a more sensible approach to it than is provided in this bill are reached before it gets to a vote in the Senate. In terms of the impact on the people who are being threatened by this, it is also interesting to note that the people who are confronted by these problems and by what is raised in here have a number of supporters, not just the Australian Hospitals Association and the Australian Catholic Health Care Association. The Productivity Commission inquiry into health insurance underlined the difficulties and the problems that were there and also those problems that were associated with the situation more generally. One of the things that the Productivity Commission found in the general private health insurance fund area related to the attack that had been made on Medibank Private. They had been effectively monopolistic and even though they are the largest insurance fund, they had some monopolistic advantage against the other funds. There were perceptions of unfair competitive advantage and recommendations that Medibank Private again should be separated out from Medicare offices. We go back to a situation which occurred during the Fraser government and which, again, inexorably this coalition government is stepping towards. In conclusion, as Michael Millett's article is headlined, there has been an ill wind for health funds but there has also been an ill wind for patients. The approach of the coalition government—to dismantle the public health system over time, to underfund it, to underresource it and to whittle it away as they did through the seven years of the Fraser government and as they are starting to do now—will not solve the problem with the private insurance funds. It is the hope of this coalition government that they will. When the Prime Minister the other day in question time proudly said that 61 per cent coverage was there in 1983, he was pointing to seven years of the dismantling of Medibank and to seven
years of rejigging the system from public to private. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I was just trying to rack my brain over the events of the last two years to see whether or not this particular claim that I am about to make is justified or otherwise. I suspect that some of the unadulterated rubbish we have just heard from the member for Blaxland (Mr Hatton) is probably at the peak of the performance—or somewhere near it—during the term of this 38th parliament, perhaps only surpassed by some of the contributions his predecessor made in this place, the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating. It is absolute unadulterated rubbish to suggest that the Howard government is trying to wind back the public hospital system. It is absolute unadulterated rubbish to suggest that the Medicare rebate is being wound back from 85 per cent to 75 per cent. It is all false, all untrue and all to the heart of the matter before us today. It seems to me that the member for Blaxland has got it so wrong. Health is one of the key issues that is before us as a parliament and as a government. We have people in this country who have been incredibly loyal to the private health insurance funds. Often they are older members of the community and they are certainly frustrated by constant premium rises and the uncertainty of the particular benefits they may get from that loyalty. In so many ways the government's incentive scheme to assist people by providing private insurance rebates has turned the tide and has stemmed the rate of flow away from private health insurance that the previous Keating government presided over for 13 years. I guess that is why the member for Blaxland is in here today defending the abysmal performance of his colleagues and his cohorts and those 13 dreadful unlucky years for Australia. What we are having at the moment as far as private health insurance membership is concerned is simply the best results for a decade. It is not so much that there are new people in the funds but the tide is now starting to slow, the government's incentive scheme is starting to work. As you know, Mr
Deputy Speaker Forrest, we have people in our electorates who want medical benefits contributions to be tax deductible. Of course, that sort of thing is worth tens of billions of dollars. To move it from a tax liability under the Medicare operation to a tax deduction is just not a doable thing. This government supports the universality of Medicare. It is important that Medicare continues to provide certainty for all Australians whether they are in the private health insurance system or not. While Labor sees private health as a luxury, a supplementary, we see it as part of a vital partnership between private and public. It is a partnership which this country desperately needs, otherwise we are going to see the assets of private hospital beds being given away, being thrown down the drain. Labor plans to throw billions of dollars at the public system at a time when this government has spent the last couple of years undoing the sort of mess that Mr Beazley left us—a $10 billion-plus deficit—which people in Australia all understand occurred. The Labor Party proposes to throw billions of dollars at the public hospital system and ignore the private health insurance system. It is an irresponsible process and an irresponsible proposal which would be another kick in the teeth for a system which is near and dear to so many Australians, provides them with security and certainty, and is something that they have been loyal to. Over 30 per cent of Australians, no matter what the Labor Party has thrown at them over the years, have maintained their membership in private health insurance. This government stands ready to assist that 30 per cent and encourage more back into the scheme to ensure they get some of the benefits they so dearly want. We come to the heart of the question: why do premiums rise? There are a lot of reasons; some are historic and some are legislative. The health legislation provides very few avenues for refusing a claim for the increase of fund contributions. In fact, on only one occasion in 20 years has a minister managed to refuse an increase—and that was overturned by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is very important to note that the decision of the private health insurance funds to limit their increases to one a year is a very important and certainty-creating measure and announcement. It is welcomed by me and many other people in this place. It is worth reflecting that, had the government not introduced the incentive scheme, we would probably see premiums 10 or 15 per cent higher—in fact, Minister Wooldridge estimated the other day they would be up to 18 per cent higher, that is, 18 per cent additional cost to a household. The government's incentive scheme is underwriting it by that much. Why would Labor float, perhaps by inference, perhaps by design—if they ever get a health policy together, we will see it in writing—the notion of jeopardising that scheme? Overnight, we would see private health insurance contributions increase by 18 per cent if Labor were ever returned to the government benches in this place. That would be a bigger increase than was caused by Labor's failed 1993 Medicare agreement when they signed away billions of dollars. By turning their back on the fact that it was going to happen they allowed a cost shift to occur, whereby the states were able to shift costs to the federal government simply by signing money out of hospitals. It caused a huge increase in the cost of private hospital beds in this country. Private hospital costs—one of the matters in this bill before us today—are at the heart of why private health insurance costs increase. There are some considerable costs involved in certain operations. I note that the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia, for which I hold absolutely no brief although I have been a member for a long time—and I will perhaps come to some criticisms of them later—have released a statement today of the top 50 benefit payments. These highlight the value of private cover. It is a very interesting and telling document. They have listed 50 payments made to individual members for particular procedures they have undertaken. The top payment in the year January to December 1997 was for a chronic condition. It cost $129,287.80. That was one payment to one member, and all of us who are contribu
tors to MBF helped to assist whoever that poor soul was who had this chronic condition. A cardiac care payment of $125,988 was the second such high payment. A cerebral condition required a payment of $119,881.70. In fact, there were seven payments over $100,000 in that year. It is quite an extraordinary list which I recommend to all in this place to read, a record of payments made to members of private health insurance funds, through MBF. It certainly does underline the importance of having private health insurance. It is also worth noting that Labor's past attacks on private health insurance through the private hospital system have caused some of the huge increases. In 1985, the Hawke-Keating government—with Mr Beazley as one of the key ministers—took away the bed day subsidy for private hospitals. In 1986, they made health funds pay for the difference between the then 75 per cent Medicare rebate and the schedule fee. Between 1984 and 1989 the government took away its $100 million dollar a year contribution to the reinsurance pool. The effect of those three decisions on private health insurance has been to make it 30 per cent more expensive than it would have been otherwise. That is Labor's dab hand on private health insurance. More in particular, that is the sort of hurt Labor inflicted on constituents of mine, mainly older Australians, who despite all this have maintained loyalty to the health insurance funds. Anybody from the Australian Labor Party who comes in here today and questions the real solutions this government is offering through this legislation and further bills to come should question whether Labor members should be hanging their heads in absolute shame. They should be coming in here today to apologise, because there are many older Australians who are incredibly angry over Labor's long-term deliberate attack on them. It is an absolute disgrace and has been made absolutely worse in recent times by the scurrilous and misleading concoctions that the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) and others have come up with in regard to nursing home care. It is absolute and arrant nonsense that has been peddled around all the highways and byways—and on too many occasions in this
place—and which, frankly, is baseless. When the facts confront them, people understand the Labor Party has misled them. It really is a case of whatever it takes. While this government is all about stopping the exodus Labor deliberately manufactured from private health insurance, the Labor Party comes in to complain. If you go to the words of the former Senator Graham Richardson, the author of that famous book Whatever it takes, in talking about his own political party he said that the Labor Party had always been a bit biased against private health insurance. When he tried to put something through cabinet, he got it through but caucus knocked it on the head. Richo obviously reflects very strongly on the fact that the Labor Party has really wrecked private health insurance in this country to the point where back in 1995-96 the health insurance funds lost $122 million. In 1996-97 they lost $113 million. In order to ensure they do not keep losing money and there is certainty for contributors, this government unfortunately has had to approve on a couple of occasions premium rises. Contributors have paid more. Along with the government's incentive scheme, we have ensured that the rate of decline in private health insurance membership has started to be stemmed. I think it should be welcomed by those opposite, not condemned, and no great conspiracy theory that they offer should be accepted by anybody here. This bill proposes to amend a number of acts of the parliament: the National Health Act 1953, the Health Insurance Act 1973, the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The amendments will give effect to just a part of the government's overall package of reforms to private health insurance. As a result of the reforms contained in this bill, there will be a greater positive and competitive environment in the private health insurance sector and the private health sector in general. We will take some of the pressures off the cost of private health insurance premiums. We will make contracting—that means an understanding of obligation between people—more attractive between the various parties involved
in delivering services. We will certainly help consumers—patients—by reducing the problems of often large and unexpected out-of-pocket expenses and multiple medical bills. At a time when people are sick they find unexpected out-of-pocket costs, despite being in private health insurance. The amendments in this bill today will give a bit more certainty and a bit more comfort to people at a time of illness. The government is also considering various recommendations from a number of inquiries—including the Industry Commission—for unfunded lifetime community rating. This is designed to balance the age distribution of fund membership to make private health insurance more affordable for young and old alike and to reward loyalty for people who have been members for a long period of time. So many people in my electorate of Moreton have come to me and said, `We have been in it for 30 years and we feel a bit beaten up. Why don't we get some reward for that effort?' As a result of this bill, they will start seeing some of those rewards. It is certainly something that has been wanted by people in my electorate. There are a couple of things that I think the funds themselves have to address. I mentioned the other day in this place that I felt they had let us all down a little bit on a couple of aspects. I am disappointed that MBF shut down their Moorooka office, not too far from my electorate office, and told the people in and around the Moorooka area—a lot of them elderly people—that they have to traverse to Garden City, to the big MBF office there, or perhaps into the city itself. Unfortunately, with the very disappointing Brisbane City Council bus service through that area, that will be difficult for them. I am disappointed that MBF have decided to do that. I also think they have to look at the other `P' in the basic marketing of the four `Ps'. They have to look at the price question. They really have to start looking at whether or not prices constantly going up has been as clever a marketing approach as maybe looking to stabilise prices. I think the funds have to try to do their bit. They really have to try even harder. I think the range of products that
funds offer are not as diverse or as responsive to the needs of their potential customers as well as their existing customers. I know that this government through this bill is doing something about encouraging a greater range of products and involvement from more people in the community in private health insurance. Obviously, from a promotional point of view, I suspect today's news release from MBF is a very good start. The message that private health insurance gets out to existing customers and potential customers is not good. It tends to be the greatest collection of bad news, and yet they have some very important points to hammer home, when you look at the amount of benefits that individual people have been able to achieve simply because they have been a member of the fund. This government is giving a very loud and clear message. We understand, unlike those opposite, that the private sector is a vital component in the long-term viability of Medicare and the public hospital system. We are taking active and positive steps to ensure that private health insurance is a realistic choice for those Australians who wish to maintain it. We are introducing a number of reforms to private health insurance through this bill which build on the government's private health insurance incentive scheme and the adjustments to the Medicare levy for people on higher incomes. They are those people who have basically shirked their responsibility, and they are now presented with the choice of paying a higher Medicare levy or paying into a private health insurance fund. It is not up to me or anyone in this place to dictate the particular choices they should make, but it is good that we are introducing that kind of stick to complement the carrot as far as getting more people in private health insurance is concerned. I think the move of this government to try to correct the failures of the previous government in this area is very important. The fact that we are now trying to make contracting between funds, hospitals and doctors more attractive so that people will no longer have
to face the incidence of unknown out-of-pocket costs is a very important one. The previous government predicted that 20 per cent of doctors would be contracted to hospitals by 1997, and yet in reality there was only a handful—a lot promised and nothing achieved. As a result, consumers—patients—continue to face often large and unanticipated out-of-pocket medical bills. By contrast, the Howard government stands for greater certainty for consumers either through informed financial consent so they understand in advance what out-of-pocket costs are going to be or, even better, through securing agreements or contracts to ensure that 100 per cent of the absolute cost of their going to hospital is dealt with. They know they are covered through both Medicare and the private system. Because this bill opens the door on a regime that all hospital costs are being met by means of insurance cover, it is something that those opposite should be supporting today. Schedule 3, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, of the bill will allow, for the first time, health funds to pay medical benefits above the Medicare benefit schedule to doctors who have practitioner agreements with private hospitals. This will greatly simplify the billing and claiming process for patients and make it easy for them to see the advantage of private cover. There are also advantages for doctors. As the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) said in introducing the bill:. . . doctors will no longer have to negotiate only with the funds, which is a key objection that the medical profession has raised and steadfastly maintained since 1994. Agreements will be negotiated by the people directly involved in providing care to patients, who will then be able to provide services for no or known out-of-pocket costs and with greatly simplified billing and claiming procedures for the patient. So we have a patient-client focus here. We are a real contrast with the previous government: we are about outcomes, about getting results. That is what the Howard government is all about, and we are moving things in the right direction. This bill also contains a number of changes to remove unnecessary costs on funds, to improve the regulatory environment and to
make refinements to existing legislation, and to improve the operation of the overall private health industry. For example, the definition of private insurance business will be tightened to reduce the potential for new products entering the market to undermine the government's commitment to community rating. We are also looking after those loyal subscribers for private health by extending the maximum waiting period for obstetrics from nine to 12 months. Probably everybody in this place would know of those who have been the hit and run patients—the ones who join the fund and then get out after they have used the benefit, leaving the cost to everybody who has maintained their membership in the fund. Schedule 8 also allows Medicare payments for in-hospital medical treatment to be paid to another party as part of an improved, simplified billing arrangement. All in all, the reforms in this bill have the potential to create an environment which is more attractive not only to new players but also to the Australian community through the development of a range of health insurance products that truly offer value for money. This bill is all about reversing one of Labor's big failures—the decline in membership of private health insurance, and, as a result, the increased pressure on the public hospital system. By having private and public working as a solid partnership encouraged by government, the best results will be achieved for all Australians. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
Possibly the most significant changes being sought in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 appear in schedule 2—those dealing with payments for acute care. The current law allows nursing home institutions to claim benefits for residents from health insurance funds at the top acute care rate for a period of 35 days, regardless of the length of time a patient actually receives this level of care. It also provides for hospitals to claim, as a matter of course, the same rate of payment for a 35-day period for individuals who require hospitalisation while awaiting a place in a nursing home facility, even if an acute level of care is administered for only a single day. Such an anomaly cannot be supported by any fair-minded person. The bill does not propose to abolish the payment of benefits at the acute care threshold, but rather seeks to introduce a greater efficiency and transparency into the equation by saying that acute care benefits will in future be paid only where it is demonstrated that, first, acute care has been provided, and, second, the length of time that it has been provided is confirmed. How can anyone argue against such a proposition? The debate about inefficiencies in the acute care payments system is not a new one, of course. In March 1995, the Community Affairs Legislation Committee was told by numerous organisations of the absurdity of the provision of acute care funding in Australia. Mr Russell Schneider, the then Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Health Insurance Association, the AHIA, noted that the law gave unscrupulous hospitals the opportunity to admit patients for a period of 35 days at the acute care rate, discharge the patients for a brief spell, and then re-admit them for another 35-day term in order to acquire the maximum daily rate. Mr Schneider quite rightly suggested then: This is—and it is suggested that it remains—an unnecessary impost on health funds and drives prices up. As far back as March 1995, the AHIA was sounding the alarm about this element of inefficiency in our health care system. More than three years ago it was proposed that nursing home type benefits should be `classified', and receive benefits in keeping with their classification, from the time that they no longer require acute care. The former government chose to ignore this recommendation and in so doing contributed to, at least in part, our current private health insurance membership fiasco. While it is true that the public revenue is not immediately at stake in this measure, private health insurance funds are being adversely affected to a greater or lesser extent. It is difficult to quantify the true financial impact of this anomalous provision because of the variation in the terms of the contracts negotiated between the funds and the hospi
tals. However, the worst case scenario sees some private health insurance funds paying up to several hundred dollars per patient per day to comply with their acute care funding obligations. I say again: several hundreds of dollars per patient per day for 35 days, irrespective of whether acute care treatment is administered for that length of time. What madness! Why would anyone be inclined to take out private health insurance knowing that their rising premiums are influenced, in part, by a cost that may never have been borne by the care providers? The answer appears to be a simple one. No informed consumer would opt to do so, and this is reflected in the consistent decline in private health membership in recent years and the simultaneous exponential increase in public health care costs. The current act stipulates that it is the responsibility of the treating physician to certify when a patient does require acute care, and this will not be eroded under the amendments before us today. Nor should it be, because it is a critical feature of the doctor-patient relationship that the former bears the responsibility for determining the best possible treatment for his or her patients. For those who would argue that the coalition is seeking to embrace a system comparable to the discredited United States `managed care' model, it is important that they understand that schedule 3 specifically intends to cement the doctor-patient relationship. As page 2 of the explanatory memorandum explains, it is the coalition's intention that, where doctors sign contracts with either hospitals or health funds, an undertaking is provided to `maintain the general professional freedom of doctors to identify the appropriate treatment for their patients'. In other words, the doctor will remain accountable for determining the standard of care required by a patient as opposed to the private health insurance fund or any other party with a vested interest. Consumer protection is not being sacrificed in any manner under these proposals. In 1983 the then Minister for Health, Dr Neal Blewett, declared that his government fully recognised the valuable role played by
the private sector of the health delivery system. He reiterated the same sentiment six years later when he said: I have always maintained that Medicare's continued success and high popularity is dependent upon the maintenance of a strong, viable private health sector. This same dialogue has been espoused by the coalition since its election to government. What once may have been a strong and viable private health care sector has been waning for more than a decade, hence the need for the sort of reform that this proposed legislation includes. Schedule 8 of the bill also seeks to introduce changes aimed at facilitating improved efficiency, better standards of care and greater accountability in the health industry. The 1997 Industry Commission report into the private health insurance industry found that a key factor in declining membership was the often substantial out-of-pocket expenses for fund members who require hospitalisation. There are two issues at play here. The first is whether consumers who take out and maintain private health cover should be hit by out-of-pocket expenses at all. The second is that most patients find it difficult to calculate the gap between the total cost of their hospital treatment and the amount that will be met by their health insurance policy because of the current payment system and a reluctance on the part of service providers to issue up-front information. The former concern is in no way addressed by these amendments. However, private health insurance policy holders should benefit from the government's plan to introduce aggregate billing for medical treatment, that is, patients will receive a single itemised account following in-hospital treatment which will detail the total amount owed by the patient and to whom that money is owed. If the government has its way, patients will no longer have to sift through a multitude of bills with little chance of predicting the final amount of out-of-pocket expenses that will have to be met. The Productivity Commission, in the report I alluded to a little earlier, noted that our health care system is characterised by `disparate' and `poorly coordinated' delivery
mechanisms. This bears directly on our Byzantine billing process. The decision to simplify hospital billing procedures goes some way towards correcting this, and will enhance the level of informed financial consent by consumers of private health insurance. This is a fair and reasonable provision. The 1998 OECD Economic Survey noted, in its review of the Australian health care system: New ways of restraining expenditure were required, not only to enhance efficiency, but also because the limits were being reached beyond which service would be adversely affected . . . The report continued to note: To be effective, new approaches (to health care funding) had to focus on the root causes of expenditure pressures. Despite the suggestion by the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge), reported in the June edition of Healthcover , that it is on the supply side that significant savings can be made in health, the biggest contributor to our burgeoning health care costs is a total lack of appreciation by the general public of the true cost of medical treatment. Whereas in the past governments have identified the Medicare levy as a separate impost in its tax table, the coalition has been recently reported as considering reverting to treating it as part of the aggregate individual tax component. That is a position I have canvassed for several years now. In far too many cases the general public believe, quite wrongly, that the Medicare levy is commensurate with our total health care costs. The effect of the second `out of sight, out of mind' approach could be that it is altogether forgotten that Medicare is funded through the tax system by the taxpayer. I do not know which is worse. This legislation does, in some small way, tackle some of the expenditure pressures on our health system. The decision by the government to extend the waiting time for benefits for obstetrics up to 12 months is a sensible one. The Productivity Commission identified this as being one area most prone to `hit and run' behaviour by part-time—if I can put it that way—private insurers and this has had a devastating effect on private health insurance premiums. The Productivity Commission estimates that, in the year 1995-96 alone, hit and run cases were a
net cost to Australian private health funds of between $40 million and $80 million. It also found that since hit and runs represent a rational response to the current set of pre-existing ailment rules, they are likely to grow in significance over time. Therefore, the government's determination to, firstly, extend the waiting period for obstetrics and, secondly, reinstate the word `condition' as part of the definition of a pre-existing ailment is entirely supportable. The explanatory memorandum states that the amendment sought in this legislation will not affect public revenue. In the immediate term, that may well be true. However, as we all know, the relationship between the taxpayer funded Medicare system and the private health insurance system means that a decrease in the latter places additional pressure on the former over time. There is a very direct link between declining private health insurance numbers and increasing demands on the universal public health care system. The fact that the Commonwealth and state governments now collectively fund 80 per cent of total expenditure on medical services and public hospitals while private health insurance accounts for just over 10 per cent of total health expenditure proves that to be true. Page 5 of the explanatory memorandum correctly notes that this results in: An element of instability . . . introduced into the sector and those most disadvantaged are the sick and elderly who in some cases may have contributed to private health insurance for many years. That statement deserves more than a passing comment because it is factually incorrect. As the 1997 Industry Commission report demonstrated, it is actually those Australians who are deemed to be a low risk to health insurers—that is, the young and healthy—who have more readily relinquished their commitment to private health insurance as premiums have increased. Any considered decision to either take out and maintain health cover or reject private health insurance in favour of relying on the public system is presumably based on a personal cost-benefit analysis. The onus is therefore on government to foster an
environment conducive to improving private health insurance membership. There is good reason to be sceptical about the earlier attempt by the coalition to do this by way of increasing the Medicare levy for all supposedly high income earners who are not privately insured. It is too early to judge the success of this move, but it is unlikely that it will stabilise the outflow of membership from private health insurance, let alone reverse this trend. It is to be hoped that the amendments in this bill will do more to modify the behaviour of a greater number of Australians towards health care, to the extent that private health insurance begins to shoulder a bigger burden of the total health care costs. However, this bill will not see reform of a substantial kind, and it is substantial reform that is required if we are to reverse the current trend that will see around only one in 10 Australians with private health insurance by the year 2030. | Australia | 1,998 |
I would like to correct something that the member for Blaxland (Mr Hatton) claimed earlier this morning when he was speaking. He said that the government had cut the Medicare benefit from 85 per cent of the schedule fee to 75 per cent of the schedule fee. This is not true. I have here the medical benefit schedule book for November 1997. I quote from page 15, where it says, `The Medicare benefit is 85 per cent of the schedule fee.' I would like to question the member for Blaxland's comment there, and why he made it. The Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 again shows this government's commitment to providing good and relevant government—government applicable to the current times and relevant to our own society and culture. In Australia today good government amounts to not only responding to the needs and desires of the whole population but also responding to a range of environmental forces, not the least of which are economic ones. Good government recognises the traditional cultural bias in Australia towards private enterprise and freedom of choice. Furthermore, it is based on sound economic management. The bill currently before the House contains a number of amendments to the National Health Act 1953 and to the Health Insurance Act 1973. I wish to refer to a few major elements of the bill and to highlight the difference between the Liberal and Labor interpretations of good and relevant government. In a nutshell, this government's bill before the House today finetunes current health care arrangements regarding assessment of nursing home type care payments. It addresses concerns of the medical profession and the public regarding agreements between doctors, hospitals and health insurance funds. It simplifies and streamlines administrative procedures, especially billing arrangements. It makes reinsurance easier for consumers and addresses the hit and run rorting of the health insurance system. This government has recognised that the current health insurance system needs refining to make it consistent with sound economic policy. Health care legislation is currently coarsely framed in broad terms, unnecessarily adding to the costs of health insurance. This government will remove the requirement to classify as acute care all nursing home type care provided by hospitals to patients who are only waiting for a place to become available in a nursing home. In actual fact, not all care provided to these people is acute care. The Productivity Commission sees no economic basis for payment of benefits at a higher rate than is necessary, as this is an unnecessary cost to funds. Why should we pay for care that does not occur? Rigid rules have created cost burdens that inevitably add to pressure to increase premiums, and it is our duty to address this problem. What is required is a more flexible approach, an approach involving aged care assessment teams to determine individual case eligibility for nursing home placements and to determine acute care status. This reform is indicative of sound economic management practice which the coalition government is committed to employing. A second economic initiative in this bill involves closing loopholes that have also
added to the cost of health care insurance. There is a widespread pattern of hit and run abuse of memberships by consumers who have joined a fund, served the waiting period and then, after drawing down on the benefits, have left the fund. The cost of treatment of these opportunists falls on all bona fide members. I would like to quote from a press release by the MBF that came out today. In that press release they cited the 50 highest benefit payments that they had given in the previous year. Of those, several were hip replacements. A hip replacement costs somewhere between $70,000 and $87,000, depending on where it is done and who does it; and a lot of these hit and run people are people coming into the medical benefit schemes just to have a hip replacement and leaving. That is a huge financial burden on those that are left in the scheme. David Jones, from Medical Benefits, is quoted here as saying: Our top benefit payments last year show what a value the private cover is. It is very real indeed and the addition of financial support provided offers access to health services and peace of mind of knowing that the cover is there when needed. But it also is necessary for us to be aware that, if you are going to have to pay out $80,000-plus for a procedure, there should be some way of being able to control that sort of cost. The bill extends the waiting period for some conditions—for example, for obstetrics it will be extended from nine to 12 months. The bill also promotes a range of sound business practices. One such practice is providing efficient customer service. In the private health insurance industry it has been identified that one of the major complaints has been the billing and payment systems. Frequently patients have to meet dozens of bills for one procedure without having any idea of what the final cost might be. Unpredictability and large out-of-pocket expenses have caused dissatisfaction among consumers, and this bill provides for more certainty as patients will be able to get up-front quotes and simplified billing through hospitals coordinating claims and issuing only one bill to patients. Customer service will
further be enhanced through the reciprocal health care agreements that allow consumers to readily transfer between funds without losing continuity of cover. Transparency is another sound business practice that is particularly important where public accountability is an issue. Transparency provisions are introduced by this bill in the form of a requirement that health funds make available to any person requesting them copies of purchaser-provider agreements and medical purchaser-provider agreements. Note, however, that personal information is exempt from this disclosure. Consumer confidence and participation in the private health insurance industry will be enhanced with free access to information. It is a fact that the public health system could never cater for the needs of the whole population, and it is essential that a strong private sector be fostered and maintained. Ideally, the two systems, public and private, will exist side by side. Our nation has a strong tradition of support for private enterprise and competition. It enjoys the fruits of the system, namely, choice and competitive pricing. This bill acknowledges this strong tradition or preference and includes initiatives to enhance those elements within the health care industry. By encouraging doctors to enter into contractual arrangements with insurance funds and hospitals, the amount of gap payments or out-of-pocket expenses will be reduced. By making insurance cover easily transferable, consumers will have more bargaining power. Under the previous government's contracting arrangements, very few doctors became involved in the scheme. Many held reasonable fears that their professional authority might be compromised by the superior market bargaining power of the health funds. This bill allays those fears by legislating into any such contractual arrangements undertakings to allow doctors to retain their professional freedom to dictate the kind of treatment for their patients. This bill spells out freedom of choice and incentive to private enterprise. This legislation will allow for one admission and one bill in hospital. Several hospitals
have been piloting a cooperative billing system. One of these hospitals is in Brisbane—St Andrews War Memorial Hospital. They saw the need as far back as September 1996 and were very grateful to be included in the pilot scheme. They discovered that patients undergoing open heart surgery were receiving upwards of 14 different procedures and sometimes 30 separate bills. The hospital implemented a system with the cooperation of pathology and the surgeon and the bills were reduced to either one per week or even down to one per patient. This required cooperation with Medicare, the health insurance funds and the doctors. Mr David Keogh, the Commercial Director of St Andrews, told me of two cases in the past 12 months of patients who had received over 100 separate bills. He said this was a totally intolerable burden for anyone, let alone someone who may be elderly as well as sick. The hospital was able to present the patient with one account at the end of their stay. St Andrews has been part of the pilot program and the hospital admits that it did not realise what was happening in relation to the number of bills patients were receiving and they had to put themselves in the place of the patient. Some of the patients were even getting bills months and months after the event. As a result of this scheme, everyone is being paid more quickly and it has focused the providers on running a more efficient service. A Labor government may have introduced universal health care, but, as I have said before in this House, they do not have a mortgage on social justice policy. In fact, left in the hands of Labor, the policy foundered because of poor implementation. Cost control and market demand are foreign concepts to those who are brought up on a socialist ideology. What Labor failed to appreciate is that social experiments have been abandoned worldwide because of their failure. Although Labor toyed with the idea of contractual agreements, they could not entice doctors to become involved. This is indicative of their lack of understanding of private enterprise. Those who are foolish enough to criticise this government's proposed legislation are indicted by their own dearth of proposals
bearing any reference to incentive or promotion of private enterprise in the health insurance industry. The shadow minister, Mr Michael Lee, apparently does not know that the private sector is a vital part of the health care industry. He is unwilling to give any commitments to retaining the means tested $450 benefit to families who take out private health care insurance. Thousands in my own electorate receive this subsidy—yet the shadow minister looks like he wants to take it away. This government see it as their duty to foster a private enterprise environment that will continue to permit Australians to have a choice in their medical care and insurance arrangements. Labor governments fundamentally do not understand and cannot manage policy applicable to private enterprise. They do not acknowledge the economic market culture that Australians have chosen since the nation began. Labor governments are stuck in a time warp, knowing only how to mass produce. They would have us all consuming the same public goods and services produced at spiralling costs. It is time they were awoken from their Rip Van Winkle-like sleep, to take a look at the real world today. Having no appreciation of the dynamic nature of the environment, the need for flexibility and the concept of consumer demand, there is no way that Labor should ever be put in charge of managing the business of government. The Liberal Party understands the need for strategic direction and is not afraid to give birth to new ideas in response to a changing environment. It is ready to ride the waves of change while Labor, on the other hand, would have this country washed up on the sand. The bill before the House is one that we as a conservative government are proud of and which we believe is appropriate to the current times and circumstances. It is consistent with the desire of the nation to retain a strong and healthy private sector that delivers free choice and cost effectiveness. The core elements of the bill spell out sound business and economic management. I commend the bill to the House. | Australia | 1,998 |
I am pleased today to speak on the Health Legisla
tion Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997. By way of preface, I would like to say that I, along with many people, am fully aware that the people of Australia want to know that when they get sick or are in need of care they are going to be cared for. This can be done by privately insuring yourself or by the government making provision for you if you cannot. This bill is designed to make private health insurance more attractive to consumers by making it better value for money. The provisions of this bill will complement those already implemented by this government to reduce the burden on the public health system by encouraging increased private health insurance membership. The issue of private health insurance is a high priority in my electorate in Swan. It is one of the highest rating issues in surveys and it is one of the most frequently raised issues in correspondence, phone calls and visits to my office. Health insurance affects the elderly, younger families and singles in Swan. I would like to point out that the majority of people I have spoken to in my electorate have indicated that they are more than happy to shoulder the responsibility for their own health care. I am particularly encouraged when I speak to elderly people who, by way of interest, make up one-third of my electorate. These people believe that they are responsible for as much of their own health care and health insurance as they can possibly afford. It is nice to see that some are responsible in this area. They are aware of this government's rationale for encouraging people to get into, and remain in, private health insurance—simply to free up the public hospital system, particularly for those who cannot afford private health cover, and to provide the public with a more effective, efficient and equitable health system. This government has always stated its intention to retain Medicare. There is no question about that. We will continue to look after those people who are genuinely in need. Australia has a unique mixed system of hospital and medical care, blending Medicare and state funded hospital services with the private health network. The public and the private systems are interdependent, not inde
pendent of each other. Labor and the Democrats often talk about building more public hospitals to meet the demand, when about one-third of private hospital beds remain empty. In the last few days it has been exposed that the shadow health minister, the member for Dobell (Mr Lee), has been postulating in the wider electorate that, if his government get the opportunity, they will have a spending binge, of the order of $6 million, on health. The old Labor way: just throw a bucket of money at it and you will solve the problem. This government's first priority is to make the most effective use of all existing facilities, both public and private. This government has introduced incentives for those who do take out private health insurance. The one per cent surcharge on those who can afford it—and rightly so—in addition to the Medicare levy, has gone some little way towards addressing the problem of declining private health insurance memberships and the burden that it is imposing on the public system. Incentives announced by this government in the 1996-97 budget, which commenced on 1 July last year, saw the government outlay around $600 million per year to reduce the cost of private health insurance for low and middle income earners. Almost 80 per cent of families are eligible for these incentives and the health insurance costs for these families are expected to be reduced by up to 20 per cent. This, as we know, is the $450 family rebate. It has been asked of me many times, `Why don't we go back to the old system where you can claim a tax exemption for private health insurance?' It is a great idea; in fact, I was brought up on that. My mum used to go in and buy the HBF stamps and put them in her little book and then dad used to claim an exemption. The answer to that question is that they do receive an exemption by way of this rebate which our government brought in as an incentive. The unfortunate part is that, rather than claiming it through the taxation system, they are allowed to apply for it either individually or eventually as a rebate in the taxation system. It is there, but for some reason it is not transparently obvious. Declining private health insurance memberships are not helped by increased premiums or by the perception that private health insurance is simply not value for money. Last year was the first time insurance companies had to dip into their reserves over the costs for claimants. We know that the Labor Party—those on that side—are quite indifferent to private health insurance. We know that from the good mate Richo, who said in his book that the Labor Party really do not have a great regard for private health insurance. Certainly, non-claimants, like any other form of insurance, end up carrying the can to some degree for those who do claim. With other forms of insurance you get a no-claim bonus, but you do not get it with health insurance. I suppose that is one of the disincentives. I agree with the concept of community rating, which I will talk about a bit later, because you do not always have control over the state of your health so equal costs for equal insurance regardless age or state of health are vital to the fairness of our system. But in the absence of reduced premiums there need to be other aspects of private health insurance to make this product more attractive. I think the one that has been floated out in the media in recent times is a very good prospect, and that is that there might be the opportunity for companies, as part of a salary package, to pay their employees' private health insurance and but be exempt from fringe benefits tax. It would be a great lure to attract a greater number of people into private health insurance if it were done as a salary package and not taxed. Anyway, I hope that that will get up. We shall soon see. This bill seeks to make private health insurance more competitive and attractive to consumers by making insurance better value for money. People may ask then if the fund covers more in terms of extras—such things as physiotherapy, dental care, glasses. They ask, if these extras are covered, will their premiums rise. The answer that they will is just not true. In the Age of 28 February Keith Finney, manager of provider relations with National Mutual, said: I'd liken it to Holden, who might put new airbags in the car. They don't necessarily ask any more for
the car. They just sell more cars because they've got a more valuable product. One of the disincentives, as we do know and as other speakers have mentioned today, is the fact that you cannot insure for the gap. We know that you cannot insure for the gap because of the unscrupulous nature of some people who might then turn that gap into a whopping great gap and it would just never end. Capping fees and charges will provide a benchmark for costs and charges. As a result, those who want to go outside of the recommended fees do so and provide the privately insured with a problem in terms of recouping the extra. But that is a problem and it is something that will have to be looked at in the future because it certainly is a disincentive for those who are in private health insurance. But I will get back to community rating. This bill will protect community rating, which is an essential aspect of fair competition in the health insurance market. Amendments to the National Health Act 1953 in this bill will ensure that the elderly and chronically ill will not be charged unfair prices for their product, and that younger and healthier people cannot be lured into cheaper and more attractive products. Community rating of premiums will stay and all contributors to private health insurance will pay the same premium for the same product. A measure contained in this bill which I am certain will be welcomed particularly by the elderly constituents of Swan, who are nursing home type patients, is the removal of the 35 days minimum charge. I heard my colleague the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) speaking about this and calling it madness. They will be charged at this rate for acute care for nursing home type patients occupying a hospital bed, whether or not acute care is actually provided. This will be replaced with a regulation which provides for determination of benefits for nursing home type patients at an appropriate level and structure. This may still include acute care benefits but if it does not there is some flexibility there for a more appropriate rate. This will be welcomed by contributors to private health insurance but there has already been, predictably, some opposition from
certain providers within the private health sector. Obviously the private health sector is concerned that they are going to lose out financially but it is expected that these reforms will attract more people to private health insurance and in time their patient numbers will increase, hence giving them more business which should make them happier. Private providers will therefore not lose out. Moreover it is my view, and I am sure one shared by the majority of people with private health insurance, that the product is essentially there to benefit the customers, and the provider has a responsibility not only to provide a high quality product but also to be competitive in its approach to customers. The Private Health Insurance Administration Council was established in 1989 to monitor the financial performance of health funds and to collect and distribute statistical information on the performance of the private health insurance industry. It is through the Private Health Insurance Administration Council that we are made aware of the levels of private health membership in Australia. We will continue to have the industry monitored by a council but the structure will be amended slightly so that the representatives of the registered health insurance organisations might be replaced by other individuals, to be appointed by the minister. Nevertheless, the council will be in a way a regulatory body in that it is to report directly on the financial and other performance indicators of the insurance firms. I would like to refer to the ombudsman in this bill. This aspect of the bill demonstrates the seriousness with which the government is treating the issue of private health insurance, particularly as it affects customers. It is proposed that the Private Health Insurance Complaints Commissioner be renamed the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman, that the roles and functions operate so that the office will be strengthened, and that measures be implemented which will enable a more efficient operation. The ombudsman is of course non-political and the title of this office will I think provide some security to people who will have no doubt about the responsibility of
an ombudsman, perhaps in contrast to him being called commissioner. People will know that they have somewhere to turn when they have a problem. We know in many areas ombudsmen are welcome regulators because they are far less legalistic, far less bureaucratic, and far more user-friendly and responsive, and I am very pleased to see the government is providing this ombudsman role in the health area. Changes to waiting periods will be welcomed by the health insurers, who claim people such as obstetrics patients take out insurance, get their benefits and then cease their membership. This is going to benefit other customers whose premiums are affected by those customers who do this. The waiting period for obstetrics is currently nine months and this bill proposes to increase it to 12, which other speakers have also referred to. The maximum waiting period for initial membership, as we know, is two months before health insurance benefits may be paid. The bill also proposes to widen the 12-month waiting period for pre-existing illnesses or ailments to include pre-existing conditions. The Industry Commission has estimated that the cost to health funds of these hit and run contributors could be between one and two per cent of annual benefits payable. So, any reduction in that figure would certainly have a positive effect to the insurer, which should be passed down to the customer. This government has some way to go in working with the private health insurance industry to make the system work better for the industry and the customer and, importantly, the health sector. We have got a mess to clean up after 10 years of neglect in this industry and premiums going up 30 per cent and even higher. The previous government did nothing to encourage private health insurance and did nothing to alleviate the pressure placed on the health system. In fact, the previous government—and this is very well known—did nothing to prevent the decline of the public health system. They knowingly allowed the private health sector to run down to the sorry condition that it is in today. Again, the old mate of the Labor party, Richo, warned them about it but he knew that
he had these ideological dinosaurs who would not let him do anything about it. Do remember, Paul Keating was the one who liked to be on the government drip and not be privately insured as well. This year, under this government, premium increases are less than they have been for the last 10 years—surprise, surprise! Out of 44 private health insurance providers, 31 will have only one increase this year. This is in recognition of the fact that they accept what we are saying as a government, that there is a need to make the industry and the product more attractive. The remaining 13 funds will not have an increase at all this year. Finally, these amendments contained in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 will compliment the government's previous legislation relating to private health insurance. It is expected there will be further changes to legislation to make even more attractive and viable the proposition of private health insurance as just one method of alleviating the pressure on the public health system. The people of Australia and the health system have a lot to gain from these amendments, and so the bill should be passed. I just want to remind the House one more time in the remaining few moments that the cost to the Australian people of the health bill is over $21 billion annually. And, here we are, we have this irresponsible shadow minister, the member for Dobell, telling us that he is going to load it up to another $6 billion or more if he ever gets near the purse strings. That is, as I said earlier, what they would do. Their opportunity as a pre-election throwaway line is throw heaps of money at it. Tell them you will do anything—you will build a hospital on every corner if you have to just so you can get their vote. We know they will not do it. We know it is a stupid proposition and it is unsustainable. We, again, reiterate that those who can afford to be privately insured and those who can afford to pay for their health care should be encouraged to. Really, we as a nation should not expect people on large incomes, and the very wealthy even worse, to be on the public drip. Unfortunately, the mentality from the last 13 years of Labor government is such
that the people have enjoyed being on the drip and they want more of it. Thankfully, there are some very responsible people out in the wider electorate who know that eventually someone pays and that it is the taxpayers of Australia who pay, and that those who can afford to pay have the responsibility to do so. I recommend the bill to the House. | Australia | 1,998 |
I would like to thank those who have taken part in this debate today on the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 , and of course note that it is perhaps not surprising that there are only two speakers from the Labor Party contributing to the debate given that this legislation is about helping those with private health insurance and those who work in the private health sector. The member for Dobell (Mr Lee) attacked the government on private health insurance, which I thought was pretty hypocritical given the previous government's record in this area. I would hope that he is not pleased to see the decrease in the number of those with private health insurance when this government, that has only been in place now for two years, is working very hard to turn that around. He referred to the Lawrence reforms, which of course were opposed by the present government when we were in opposition. They never should have been called reforms, in my view, and this legislation is certainly not an extension of that legislation. I find that it is always interesting to look back and see what one said at the time and hope that it is still accurate. When I spoke in that debate I said: This legislation is supposedly about reforms but it is full of problems. The minister claims that this legislation will reverse the trend of declining numbers with private health insurance. I argue the direct opposite. Of course, I have been proved to be quite right. I did acknowledge, though, that there were problems with patients with billing arrangements. I said in that same speech: Those involved in providing health care are familiar with the system—consumers are frequently patients and while ill and frail are at least able to handle these complicated billing arrangements. I would
therefore encourage doctors and, in some instances, hospitals to not only give verbal advice to their patients and ensure informed financial consent for procedures and treatment but also enclose a simple explanation of this minefield with accounts. Since then, we have seen some improvement and, of course, this legislation and some comments I will make shortly are certainly setting in place some problem solving in this area. The member for Blaxland (Mr Hatton) I can only say must have been strongly influenced by his former boss, the former Prime Minister, Mr Keating, who of course did not find it at all necessary to have private health insurance himself. I felt that he made some inaccurate claims in his speech, and perhaps is just one of those members of the Australian Labor party who will do and say anything to score a cheap political point. I think in the area of health, an area that affects everybody's lives, and I am certainly pleased to be working in such an area, there needs to be some special level of responsibility taken. It just is not fair and, as I say, it is a cheap shot to go around saying things that are not quite right. That brings me to the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), who has been at it again, writing to constituents about changes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I quote from her letter:. . . the Howard Government is pressuring people to switch to cheaper, older and often less effective drugs and away from medications that their doctors think most suitable. Those who can afford it get the best and newest medicine, while battlers and families have to put up with cheaper and often less effective drugs. I note that there have been no issues raised on this in this place in the last couple of days, so it is a pretty sneaky thing to be doing, putting this sort of information in letterboxes. The correct information is that in almost all instances it is in fact the newer drugs that are most recently onto the market that in fact have no premium at all. But I am not arguing that they are better. In fact, she was wrong to argue that newer is better, because independent medical experts are the ones who have put these groups together, and it is not a question of age; it is a question of how therapeutically similar they
are. I call on all members opposite to be responsible when they are talking about the health of those they seek to represent. I have had copied to me a letter from Terry Healy and he writes to the member for Jagajaga and has copied it to me, and I would like to quote from that: I am writing in my capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of a large aged care provider organisation and as Chairman of the Aged Care Organisations' Association of SA & NT, the `not-for-profit' peak body for aged care. After having received many of your facsimiles, listened to you on radio and television and suffered through the aged elements of Question Time I have come to the considered conclusion that you, or your office, are not really interested in achieving a better outcome for the elderly who are unfortunate enough to require nursing home or hostel care. You have been very successful in creating unnecessary concern amongst the elderly and their families. It is obvious from your statements that you have either a limited understanding of the industry on which you are commenting or, as I suspect is more probable, you are choosing to bend the information for political gain. Again, I call on those opposite to be more responsible when discussing such an important issue as their constituents' health. The member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) in his contribution highlighted that this legislation guaranteed the independence and clinical judgment of doctors, and that is important. Health and politics should be able to be a healthy mix if everybody got together but, as I have indicated, that seems unlikely with the opposition taking the current stand that they have. We must all be working in the best interest of patients, and looking at ways to ensure that resources are allocated where they are most needed. We should be working towards evidence based medicine, where outcomes can be measured. We have heard a lot from those opposite about the state of private health insurance. Although not all that I will say is directly related to this bill, there are some points that need answering. The previous government's policy position was to say that private health insurance and the private health sector was simply supplementary to Medicare. They grudgingly acknowledge the private sector, but relegate it to a minor role compared to the
taxpayer funded system, whereas those who know more about it and are prepared to take a more honest view will say that we will never have a viable public sector, if we do not have a viable private sector working side-by-side with it. In sharp contrast to those from the opposition, this government has focused on the total health system, public and private. The private hospital system is an essential ingredient in the provision of quality health care to the nation. The community needs to have access to the existing range of services, in both the private and public sectors. It is a matter of common sense to maximise the use of existing acute care capital stock, both in the public sector and the private sector. Patient choice is the issue here. Consumers need to have choice of hospital and choice of doctor. The private health system can deliver this choice. It is the height of hypocrisy that we have heard from those opposite about the decline in participation rates. The decline in membership is disappointing but understandable. We have had the best results in a decade but, of course, we would like to see it much better. But remember that, under Labor, participation rates went from 61 per cent to 34 per cent. Strong and positive action has been taken to ensure that private health insurance is a realistic choice for all Australians. This bill introduces reforms to private health insurance that build on the government's private health insurance incentive scheme and the adjustments of the Medicare levy. This bill is timely, as the industry has to work harder to improve cost management and develop managements that deliver simplified billing, informed financial consent and no-gap products for their members. This bill will allow the medical profession, hospitals and the funds to deliver a better service to their patients and members. Over the last couple of days, the Prime Minister and others have asked the member for Dobell what he will be doing with the government's private health insurance incentive scheme, which delivers $450 to the average low income family with health insurance, including many thousands of those in my home town of Adelaide. And what would a Labor government do for these people? Rip the benefits off them, I suppose. Let me remind the House that the people who receive these benefits are low to middle income earners, the battlers, single people earning less than $35,000 a year and families earning less than $70,000. These are the very people that Labor are supposedly so concerned about. These are the people who want private health insurance. Removing the rebate would increase premiums by about 20 per cent overnight. But then ripping money away from the private health sector is something that Labor has proven to be quite adept at. Let us not forget that a Labor government was responsible for the explosion in premiums in the mid-1980s and the decline in private health insurance coverage, decisions that we are now paying for and trying to rectify. There were decisions such as the abolition of the Commonwealth bed day subsidy for private hospital beds and the removal of the Commonwealth's contribution to the reinsurance pool. It also forced funds to cover 25 per cent of the Medicare schedule fee, it pushed expensive prostheses onto the basic table, and then it locked in powerful disincentives for having privately insured patients in public hospitals. The government is determined to make private health insurance more attractive and more affordable for more people. The reforms in this bill have the potential to create an environment which is attractive not only more to new players but also to the Australian community, through the development of health insurance products that truly offer value for money. They also form part of a comprehensive package of related measures to make the most of our existing health care assets, both public and private, and to ensure that Australians can look forward confidently to an assured quality health care system. Discussions on the 35-day rule, as quite properly mentioned by the member for Dobell, are continuing. The government is keen to see that patients are not disadvantaged but maintains that rates should not be paid for acute care where acute care is not being provided. The attitude of throwing money at a problem, despite there being no merit for
that expenditure, may explain why we inherited a deficit in excess of $10 billion. It would not explain, however, that the deficit before the election was in any way connected with health. The private health insurance legislation introduced by the previous Labor government relied on contracting between funds and doctors to address a number of issues affecting private health insurance—including the incidence of unknown out-of-pocket expenses. As I previously mentioned, this was known as the Lawrence reforms. This legislation has been a spectacular failure with only a handful of doctors prepared to enter contracts—the last I heard, only 50 out of the many thousands and thousands of doctors who are practising medicine in Australia. I very much want to achieve greater certainty for consumers, either through informed financial consent so that they know in advance the out-of-pocket costs, or, even better, by securing agreements for 100 per cent cover for their medical bills so that there would be no out-of-pocket costs. The effect of these new arrangements will be either to exclude out-of-pocket costs altogether or to allow for a predetermined amount of such costs to be known in advance by that person. In other words, doctors will no longer only have to negotiate with the health funds—and this was their key objection, which I perfectly understand, to the Lawrence reforms in 1994—but agreements can now be negotiated by those directly involved in providing care to patients, who will then be able to provide services for no out-of-pocket costs, and with greatly simplified billing and claiming procedures for patients. The bill requires all agreements offered by funds or hospitals to include a clause guaranteeing the general professional freedom of doctors to identify the appropriate treatment for their patients within the scope of clinical practice. This is very important. This legislation thus protects the clinical independence of doctors, the first time this principle has been enshrined in law in Australia. This bill takes on board the concerns of the medical profession and prevents the US-style managed care becoming commonplace in
Australia. People are correctly worried about US-style managed care, both patients and doctors. The minister has worked in the United States and has seen the big companies use their powerful market to dictate or limit clinical decisions. The government is not prepared to allow this to happen in Australia. With the threat of US-style managed care removed from the equation, I am confident that doctors will be more willing to negotiate arrangements with private hospitals. Finally, we have to respond to health funds concerned about the hit and run members and a range of problems in the regulatory environment to improve the operation of the industry. The agreements will be open to public scrutiny, with the exception of the price arrangements entered into by the parties—which will remain commercial-in-confidence—and information that could identify the individual medical practices. One of the most important reforms in this bill is that of aggregate billing—one admission, one bill. The Melbourne Private Hospital system—one of the first organisations to introduce a simplified billing system, as well as reducing multiple bills—is also able to eliminate out-of-pocket costs for privately insured patients. This scheme was put forward by doctors working at the hospital out of concern for patients. There have been examples where patients have been in the same hospital, have come out with a number of bills, which they have found stressful, and then, having gone back more recently, have found that their problems have been solved. I take this opportunity to refer to the work that a dedicated group of doctors in my own electorate have done to improve services to their patients. Dr Andrew Saies, who is known personally to me, is an orthopaedic surgeon. He and his colleagues at Sportsmed South Australia are in the process of developing a `single bill, no out-of-pocket' package for their patients, to deliver the kind of product that people expect from their private health insurance. These doctors understand what is involved working in the private sector and have their patients' best interests at heart; and I congratulate them. Initiatives such as this represent a major step forward, making private health insurance more appealing, better value for money and more consumer friendly. They also show an encouraging level of cooperation and goodwill between the funds, doctors, hospitals and consumer organisations in working together to improve service delivery to patients in the private health sector. This bill will allow the industry to better serve its patients and members. True informed consent is being encouraged. The concerns of doctors about US-style managed care have been addressed, and I think it is important that that be done. Patients will be able, in the instances that I have mentioned and where it can be further arranged, to receive one bill for one admission. This legislation is a great leap forward for the private health sector. It is a great leap forward for patients. It is ensuring that it is patient focused and that the sector will be able to deliver a better service. I commend the bill to the House. | Australia | 1,998 |
The legislation before the House sets the maximum operating grant amount for higher education institutions for the years 1999 and 2000. It also supplements for price increases the maximum amount payable to higher education for superannuation purposes, special capital projects, certain other grants and also for teaching hospitals for the year 1998. Finally, in substance, the legislation sets a
maximum amount payable to open learning organisations for the years 1999 and 2000.It is not the purpose of the Labor Party opposition to deny this bill a second reading. Rather, on a piece of legislation that provides these operating grants for higher education, our purpose is to point out to the House and the Australian people the folly of the Howard government's reforms and changes to Australian universities. I will later on be moving a second reading amendment that sets out those criticisms. The first of them relates to the way in which this government has not yet prepared an adequate response to the challenges faced by Australian universities in the globalisation of higher education. Often in this parliament, and in the broader public debate, when we talk about trade and internationalisation, it is with regard to commodities and the idea that Australia has long had a commodity-based economy and that our trade aspirations have been in that area. In fact, when one looks at the figures, the real action when it comes to trade and globalisation is in the services sector. It is still coming as a surprise perhaps to some Mps, and certainly to many commentators, that education more than ever needs to be regarded as a tradeable service and that higher education in Australia is part of the general trend towards globalisation. Sometime in the next couple of years, we will have Australian students studying out of this nation, taking out degrees on the Internet, taking degrees from overseas institutions without actually leaving our national borders. This reflects the way in which new forms of information technology and education and learning delivery have sent education into an era of internationalisation. Internet degrees are only part of the story. Most Australian institutions are trying to find some form of joint venture or collaboration with overseas universities and that is another important part of internationalisation. What needs to be understood by the parliament, and certainly by the Federal government, is that these trends cut both ways. Not only will Australia have an opportunity to take students from overseas nations and to provide new forms of learning technology that
attract export income for this nation, but we will be increasingly vulnerable to nations earning income at our expense. This is one of the interesting things in the debate. There is a certain complacency in Australia that education will always be a net export earner for Australia. It is somewhat of a First World complacency to assume that Asian nations will always be buying education services from Australia, particularly through the university sector. People need only send their memory back to the 1950s and 1960s, when it would have been assumed that Australia would always have some form of competitive advantage in manufacturing over Asian nations. In the 1950s and 1960s, when cars and whitegoods in a nation like Japan were not regarded as too technologically advanced, there was a complacency in Australia that manufacturing would always be a net export earner for our nation. We have that complacency now, in the 1990s, about education. We should learn the lessons from the 1950s and 1960s, when Australia failed to upgrade its competitive advantages in manufacturing, and we should apply those lessons in the 1990s to education. We desperately need a national strategy for the competitiveness of our higher education sector. Australia needs to look at universities not as institutions locked within the boundaries of the nation state, but as institutions very much part of the trend towards globalisation. Australia and its universities are crying out for this strategy. Australia is crying out for the leadership which would meet the challenges of globalisation in higher education. It is one of the most disappointing aspects of the current, almost long lamented review of Australian universities by the West committee that that response to globalisation has not been a leading feature of its work. It is bad enough that the minister, Dr Kemp, has walked away at this stage from most of the West deliberations. He is seeming to not take them seriously this side of the next federal election. That, perhaps, is a trend that he adopts in other parts of education policy. The ideologue always storing up a reservoir of right-wing ideas for education will only see the reservoir unleashed after the
next federal election. It is bad enough that the minister has not taken seriously the West review and the West committee. If that is not bad enough, the West material on globalisation is quite inadequate. There has not been a structured leadership approach taken by that committee on this key question of internationalisation. The Australian Labor Party, though, has a very different approach to both the minister and the West review. Our approach on globalisation is to do two things: firstly, to invest heavily in innovation in the new learning products being developed around the world for universities, that is, to make sure that Australia is a world leader when it comes to innovation for new learning technology—our universities leading the rest of the world in harnessing innovation and new learning technology as a sustainable export earner. This, of course, requires a national interest approach. Our universities need to be part of a national interest approach that places greater weight on collaboration between Australian higher education institutions and competition. One of the problems of the West process has been that the emphasis on student centred funding has positioned competition between universities somewhat as a holy grail for the sector. In fact, when it comes to responding to globalisation we need much more collaboration between Australian universities acting in the national interest than competition. The second part of the Labor Party's approach is to make sure that we invest heavily as a nation in the value of higher education, in that we provide a guarantee that our very best academics available to our country are not lost to overseas institutions because of a run-down in their status and remuneration. It is now in the national interest to invest heavily in higher education and ensure that we do not lose our best people to those institutions overseas who would seek to poach them. I believe there is a very good argument for a benchmark review of academic salaries in Australia, a review that ensures that the sector is made internationally competitive, and one that recognises the globalisation of higher education and how this nation cannot afford to lose its best people to overseas institutions. The Labor Party approach is clear. We have an effective agenda and response to globalisation. I would urge the minister opposite to take up those points, as he should take up the other reforms that I will be talking about after question time and the conclusion of the MPI debate, when I set out each of the criticisms that the Labor Party makes of government policy and our constructive ideas for a better way in higher education. | Australia | 1,998 |
Members of the House ought to note the fact that the opposition is engaged at the moment in making completely unsubstantiated allegations against an individual contractor. These allegations made outside the House might well place that contractor in a
position where he might want to consider action to protect his reputation. It shows how low the Labor Party will sink. Let me put the facts on the record. This particular tenderer and every other tenderer demonstrated his financial viability to provide the services for which he tendered. The Labor Party has made no answer to that or put any facts on the record that refute that. This tenderer and every other tenderer demonstrated that he had the strategies to help unemployed people, that he had appropriate experience and that he would be able to provide services for unemployed people. I am advised that this particular tenderer had a number of years direct personal experience in assisting unemployed people and obtained very good references in support of the effective assistance which he had been able to give unemployed people. Many organisations, large and small, who have only recently been advised of the success of their tender are now in the process of establishing their offices and hiring staff to provide Job Network services. This is perfectly normal given the fact that the results of the tender round have just been announced. The Job Network was established to allow new players to enter the market. The government had a responsibility to unemployed people to give all those many people in this country who have excellent experience and ideas an opportunity to put them forward, to stand up and to offer to provide services to unemployed people. It is not at all surprising that the new entities which the government set out to attract would not have a full complement of staff or be established at contracted sites. It has been claimed in the course of public comment that this entity does not have a registered business name. I am advised that this tenderer's business name was registered on 19 March 1997. So those claims are completely false. The facilities and staff of all tenderers have to be in place by 1 May 1998. It is not required that these facilities and staff be in place this week and, as I say, many of the contractors, including some very large and established ones, are now in the business of setting up new sites and hiring staff. Subcon
tracting is entirely acceptable because it is a way of attracting into the Job Network those people with additional experience and skills in the community to help unemployed people and to ensure that the quality of the Job Network is the highest it can possibly be. All subcontractors will have to be approved by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. It is apparent from what I have just said that untrue and inaccurate statements have been made by the Labor Party and by others in the media about this particular contractor. I suggest that they very carefully consider whether it is appropriate to be attacking, on completely unsubstantiated grounds, a person who has demonstrated experience and financial viability to provide quality services. | Australia | 1,998 |
I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh. Might I say, by way of introduction to my answer, that somebody interjected while the honourable member for Hindmarsh was asking her question with the comment, `What about the South Australian economy?' I can say this about the South Australian economy: it is a damn sight better as a result of the industry policies decisions that my government has taken. The decisions that were taken in relation to the motor vehicle industry have resulted in additional investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, and the combined statement of the industry and the trade union movement in South Australia has unanimously supported those decisions that have been taken by my government. The honourable member asked generally about the state of the economy. Occasionally one hears a comment from somebody that really does encapsulate what is happening, and I heard that from none other than my colleague the Treasurer yesterday when he said that the Australian economy was really motoring down the highway—neither too fast nor too slow. I think that really did encapsu
late the degree of control that the government's economic management has brought to the affairs of this country, and there is no section of the Australian economy or the Australian population that has gained more from the economic management of my government than Australian home buyers. Australian home buyers have benefited enormously; they have benefited richly; they have benefited regularly from the interest rate reductions that have occurred under my government. Over the past two years those interest rate reductions have been worth the equivalent of a wage rise of $90 to $100 a week. That is the good news. The bad news is that, if the Labor Party were to win the next election, that interest rate gain would be wiped away. That interest rate gain would disappear because Labor in government was the party of high interest rates. People will never forget that home mortgage rates went to 17 per cent under the stewardship of the former government. People will not forget that, when we came to office barely two years ago, housing interest rates were over 10 per cent. They are now 6.7 per cent. They have fallen by an average of $256 a month or the equivalent of a wage rise of $100 a week. All of that would be threatened if the Australian people were to re-elect a Labor government, because Labor will not do anything differently in government in the future than they did in the past. You can assume from that that, if they were elected again, we would once again see housing interest rates going up and we would once again see those affordability demands rise on the average wage earner. Every single deed that they have embraced since going into opposition indicates that all of the high spending, big deficit, high debt, high interest rate policies of the past would be resumed if, unfortunately, the Labor Party were returned to the treasury bench of Australia. So I can report to the honourable member for Hindmarsh that not only has the economy of South Australia benefited enormously from the particular policies of my government but more generally the economy of Australia is, in the words of the Treasurer, motoring down the highway—neither too fast nor too slow—
and there is no more contented spectator of that motoring journey than the Australian home buyer. That average home buyer is the equivalent of $100 a week better off in the pay packet so far as a wage rise is concerned with the lowest interest rates since the late 1960s—a testament to the shrewd, careful and sensible economic management of my government. | Australia | 1,998 |
And it could not happen that somebody would be awarded a contract who was not financially viable. The most rigorous financial viability checks were made of every tenderer, and this tenderer demonstrated his financial viability. This tenderer also demonstrated his capacity to deliver the services, on the basis of his experience. The Job Network will be greatly improving the quality of services to unemployed people. It will be doing so because, as I said on ABC radio on a number of occasions, it will provide many more vacancies, it will provide a much wider choice of agencies and it will be improving the dignity of unemployed people because they will be able to choose the agency which best meets their needs, includ
ing people in the Islamic community of Sydney. In other communities where there are many non-English speaking people there have been a significant number of organisations contracted to provide specialist services to those people. There is no foundation for the claims which are being made by the Australian Labor Party in this regard. I have seen the comments of Mr Fitzgerald. I understand that they relate to the issue of subcontracting. As I have said, subcontracting is in fact a feature of the new arrangements which will allow people with skills and experience who have not themselves received directly contracts to offer those skills and experience to unemployed people. As I said—and I do not know whether Mr Fitzgerald is aware of this—every proposal to subcontract will have to receive the permission of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. | Australia | 1,998 |
Yes, the member for Kingsford-Smith, criticising the government for negotiating the multilateral agreement on investment, the OECD agreement, in secret and hiding behind a shroud of secrecy. I can only say that the hypocrisy of this press release completely astonished me. Those of you who were elected since 1993 may not remember, but the member for Kingsford-Smith will remember that during the election campaign in 1993 the member for Kingsford-Smith, as the Minister for Industrial Relations or as parliamentary secretary, whatever he was then, arranged for the then government to ratify International Labour Organisation Convention 158, of course without consultation with the public and without consultation with the parliament. He did not even put out a press release letting the public know that this convention had been ratified and subsequently legislated in industrial relations reforms, which were a debacle, on the basis of that convention. For a man with that record to accuse this government of hiding behind a shroud of secrecy in the MAI negotiations shows that the Labor Party is not even slightly credible. The fact is that we are very happy to be transparent in these negotiations. The government, the Treasurer and I in particular, are only too happy to allow the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to examine this issue. As far as we are concerned, these negotiations can go before the treaties committee today or tomorrow. We are quite happy to refer these negotiations to the treaties committee at any time. There is no secret and there is no
secrecy in the government's approach to this or to the negotiation of treaties of this kind in general. The fact is that the transparency and openness of this government's approach stands in stark contrast to the previous government. Let me conclude with one point and that is that the member for Kingsford-Smith and some of his apparent newly found friends in the Greens and Democrats in the Senate— | Australia | 1,998 |
I thank the honourable member for Fisher for his question. The truth of the matter is that Australia's wholesale's sales tax system is unfair and needs to be reformed. At the moment, the wholesale sales tax system has rates of zero, 12, 22, 32, 37, 41 and 45 per cent. There are complications in relation to classifications. There are every
day necessities which are taxed whilst there are extravagances that go untaxed, such as caviar. This is very unfair on those people that are trying to operate the system. As well as that, the wholesale sales tax system imposes costs on our exporters. It imbeds tax into their products which they have to have, increasing their prices when they go out to sell on world markets. That is why this government is in favour of tax reform. We want to make tax fairer in this country. We can only wonder why it was that for 13 years the Australian Labor Party presided over such an unfair system and why they would take no steps to improve its fairness. When the coalition proposed reforming tax in the past, the Labor Party always said that it was too hard and it could not be done. They always said, and they are going to say it again, that they could reduce income taxes without having any changes in relation to indirect tax. We can all remember the deceit of the Australian Labor Party in the 1993 election. Remember when they said they had a policy of reducing income tax? Not just a policy—it was l-a-w, they said before the election, to reduce income tax. After the election, the l-a-w was taken away, and what did they do in relation to indirect taxes? They went into increases for indirect taxes, pushing all rates up from 10 to 12 per cent, from 20 to 22 per cent and from 30 to 32 per cent. I do think there may be a little bit of movement, however, in the Australian Labor Party. I happen to know that there is a new publication circulating in the streets of Dandenong. It is not the Dandenong Journal, it is not the Dandenong Courier; it is a new newspaper which has been founded by the member for Holt. I do not know if you are going to believe this, Mr Speaker, but this new journal published by the member for Holt is called The Gareth. If you get two of them at your house, it is called `The Gareth the Gareth'! It has got on its front page a picture of the member for Holt. It has got on its second page a picture of the member for Holt. On the second page it has also got the member for Holt talking about the fantastic restaurants across the electorate. He says: There are some great budget choices on offer in the Dandenong Central Food Court, where I take every opportunity to work my way through the counters. | Australia | 1,998 |
I thank the honourable member for Petrie for her question. This government does have a very firm commitment to increasing the number of women in decision making positions in the community and in government. For example, 27.3 per cent of the new appointments in the Senior Executive Service in the public sector last year were women. This is an increase of nearly 15 per cent since our government took office. Since coming to government we have also appointed eight female heads of mission,
and I congratulate my colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs for that. In government we have a woman as President of the Senate, we have four women ministers and we have three women as parliamentary secretaries. But this government does not believe in quotas. We have done very well without them, and I would draw the House's attention to the vast number of women we have on our benches without the need for quotas. By contrast, Labor stumbles from one failure to another in a mock attempt to get more women into parliament. It is not normally my role to defend people in the Labor Party, but the people of Australia should know the dreadful things that the ALP does to women seeking preselection and trying to stand for positions of office. In the fiasco in the seat of Oxley, Ann Scott is standing for preselection for Labor. But, when push comes to shove, the men in the Labor Party are pushed in and the women are just shoved aside. Ann Scott said on the ABC today: As early as August of last year I was threatened by a very senior member of the opposition front bench that if I did not back off in Oxley, I could expect to have a bucket of muck tipped on me. Some of the blokes in the hierarchy of the Labor party have a great deal of difficulty in preselecting women in winnable seats. And they don't mind women in marginal seats because the women may not win. . . but when it comes to winnable seats, well they want those for their mates. Who is dictating to Ann Scott and the other women in this way? I call on the Leader of the Opposition to name the senior frontbencher who made this outrageous threat. If the opposition leader does not know the name and does not know the person concerned, what is he doing as leader? Who is running the Labor Party? Is it Kim Beazley or is it Gary Gray—or is it the anonymous senior person on the front bench who made this outrageous threat? We have a Labor Party running around the country trying to get people to believe that it is the coalition government that is pushing women back into the home, but I can tell you that it is really the Labor Party's agenda to push women back home. Labor's hypocrisy regarding women is absolutely outrageous.
Labor has a woman who is wanting to give it a go—Ms Scott, in the seat of Oxley—but it is saying, `No. We think you should stay at home as a good, compliant wife; you are just a woman after all.' The people of Australia can now see the true colours of the Labor Party because, when push comes to shove, they push the men in and they shove the women aside. | Australia | 1,998 |
The result that we have had for the first year of the introduction of fees for undergraduate places is a very good result for the first year of a new policy. The government has been requested by the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee to continue to pursue that policy and undoubtedly they would have great concern at the Australian Labor Party threatening not to continue that policy. They would be concerned about that for this reason: that it is a very equitable and fair policy which is expanding places in Australian universities for all students. We know that under the Australian Labor Party tens of thousands of students were locked out of university and that Australian students were denied the right of entry to Australian universities on terms which were being offered to overseas students. It was up to this government to restore equity and fairness to Australian students in this matter. One of the important features of the fee policy for undergraduates is that, in a great many cases, when an undergraduate pays a fee for a course, they are vacating a government funded place. That government funded
place is then available to the next student, who may or may not be able to afford a fee paying course. In other words, not only are students able to get their first preference by paying a fee if they are unable to get a government funded place but students who would otherwise be denied access to a university entirely are able to get a place at the university. These basic, simple facts are very difficult to understand for the Australian Labor Party. All it understands is spending more and more of taxpayers' money, as it did when it achieved a situation which locked thousands and thousands of Australian students out of Australian universities. The policy that the government put in place has had an excellent first year. It is achieving more places at Australian universities than ever before. It is worth making the point that total enrolments in Australian universities this year will be higher than ever before. There will be 10,000 more government funded places in Australian universities this year than there were in the last year of the Labor Party government. There were some 53,000 new places in TAFE last year. Traineeships and apprenticeships under the new apprenticeship system are going gang busters—it is a word that has a certain nostalgia about it. There will be more Australian students in post-secondary education and training this year than ever before, and that is because of the very fair, equitable and successful higher education policies which this government has put in place. | Australia | 1,998 |
I thank the member for Boothby. On that Monday, 5 January, newspapers in the News Ltd stable carried a general story about government actions to freeze Skase assets. It was that day, the one referred to by the member for Boothby, at 11
o'clock, I am told, that Senator Bolkus held the press conference just referred to. What Senator Bolkus told the media then went well beyond what had been carried in the newspapers. He revealed, among other things, the jurisdictions around the world where action was being taken to recover assets. He also read parts of the confidential Federal Court document to the media. He said, as I said yesterday, that he could not give the document out but he would read it off the record. But later that same day part of an affidavit which contained the parts read by Senator Bolkus at the press conference was boxed in the press gallery here. It revealed even more details of action being taken. The question, of course, is: who boxed the document? If Senator Bolkus is taken at his word at the press conference, he could not give it out. But a spokesman for Senator Bolkus told AAP yesterday that the senator merely quoted from a document that was on the public record and he regarded it as being in the public domain. The lack of action on the part of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to Senator Bolkus is reprehensible. I call on the Leader of the Opposition again to stand Senator Bolkus down. | Australia | 1,998 |
This government is committed to ensuring that the Australian Securities Commission works hard on law enforcement and that it has the full support of the government in doing so. In 1997-98, the ASC had over $100 million in its budget to ensure the proper enforcement of Corporations Law. It had some significant wins for investors, most notably the proceedings brought against Permanent Trustee Australia and its guarantor for $100 million. It is not an easy task for the ASC to enforce Australia's corporate law. The ASC is still trying to clean up some of the actions from the 1980s in defence of Australian shareholders. It is of no help whatsoever to the ASC or to law enforcement proceedings if there are people in Australia who are prepared to compromise confidential court matters. Senator Bolkus, the shadow Attorney-General, went before a media conference on 5 January 1998 and disclosed the fact that proceedings were being undertaken not only in Australia but also in Spain, London and the Cayman Islands in relation to the Skase assets. Max Donnelly, the person who is charged with administering that estate for the benefit of creditors, said: Of all the information that's been made available to the media, the affidavit material is the most damaging. That is what he said about the disclosures of Senator Bolkus to the Australian media on 5 January 1998. This is Labor's shadow Attorney-General. I repeat: Of all the information that's been made available to the media, the affidavit material is the most damaging. It is a lame excuse in the extreme for Senator Bolkus or his statement, as is quoted on AAP, to say: I've done nothing wrong. I merely quoted from a document that was on the public record. That document was not on the public record. The Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry, wrote to Senator Amanda Vanstone on 5 March 1998, making it clear that affidavits in court proceedings can only be released upon a court order and making it clear that there was no court order for the release of the affidavits in that case. Here we have Senator Bolkus first of all reading it to the media, then saying it was on the public record when the facts were that it was not. And, what is worse, he knew this was not on the public record. He knew it was not on the public record because he said, `I can't give this document out.' It was an admission by him that he knew it was not a public document and, what is more, that he should not have got it out. He went on to read from that document, which made it entirely clear that the publication of the matters concerned would be prejudicial. Listen to the words he read from the document: If this matter comes to the attention of the respondents, and in particular the attention of Mr Skase before the interlocutory orders can be obtained in all jurisdictions, I have serious concerns that steps will be taken to prejudice the substantive proceedings. That is what he read. In other words, he was saying that the disclosure of this material will prejudice the proceedings and off the record here it is. There is no doubt whatsoever what happened. There is a photograph of the man
who would be the first law officer of the Crown under a Labor government saying, `I can't give this document out but maybe if I just read it off the record, this is the proceedings of the court.' The would-be first law officer of the Crown stands condemned by his own words. But this is now much bigger than him. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: if you want to lead, you have got to show strength. This is a great test for you. You have to call Senator Bolkus in and say, `As the first would-be law officer of the Crown, I demand your resignation.' Nothing else will suffice to show your leadership or lack thereof. This is the great test for the Leader of the Opposition. You do not have to go back far enough to remember in this place the then Labor government baying for the resignation of the present Minister for Defence because—remember it—an envelope which had come into his office was opened by a member of his staff. They came in here one by one and they said that the now Minister for Defence had to resign as a shadow minister. He had the decency to do it too. Senator Bolkus does not have the decency to do it. You have just one decent thing to do: call him in and demand his resignation. | Australia | 1,998 |
We prepared a PPQ on this matter because yesterday morning on AM Mr John Coombes was interviewed. He said in his interview in relation to something that
we were happy to provide to the Sydney Morning Herald :There'll be some questions to be answered in parliament for sure. The MUA, the organ grinder. Having said there will be questions to answer, up jumps—it would be unparliamentary, wouldn't it, to say what the member for Melbourne is in relation to John Coombes? This is pathetic. My department issues 25,000 urgent passports a year. That is around 500 a week. They clearly get dozens and dozens of phone calls, as does my office. Of course people ring the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and say, `How do I get an urgent passport?' Do you know what we do? We refer them to the department and the department issues an urgent passport, and that is how efficient we are. To give credit where it is due—and, Mr Speaker, you know I always do—the previous government had the same system as well. After your pathetic little Dubai game, I did check with my office to find out whether they knew anything about these applications. No-one in my office had any recollection. On the other hand, it is perfectly possible that someone rang my office and asked how they could get an urgent passport and my office would have told them how to. Big deal! What an extraordinary thing. I was not in the parliament during that week when it was raised by the opposition. I was in Ottawa signing the land mines treaty, doing something your government never did—that is, committing Australia to ban land mines—and you were asking questions about some Dubai training exercise. So I was not able to answer the question I would have been asked had I been here. But I will say now that the first time I ever heard of this little exercise of training waterfront workers in Dubai or wherever it was that you got so excited about—it was not even illegal; it is not that exciting—was when I got a report in Ottawa that the Labor Party had gone feral about something of no consequence whatsoever. That is the answer. We receive 25,000 applications a year for urgent passports, and my department delivers. | Australia | 1,998 |
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your attentiveness and interest in small business policy. I thank the member for his question. The government has announced a whole series of policy reforms for the benefit of the small business community. The capital gains tax reform, for example, is a tremendous incentive back in place for the small business community. We have cut the number of unfair dismissal applications by half in the federal system. That is a huge benefit for a lot of people in the small business community. We fixed up the $10 billion deficit we inherited from the previous government, with the Labor Party now committed to going on a spending spree and putting up their interest rates again. That is another benefit which we provided to the small business community and which we have given great priority to. In the amendments to the Trade Practices Act which we have announced, we have also introduced a protection for small business against unconscionable conduct. This concept of providing for the small business community the same protections against big business that consumers have is an idea that has been proposed for something like 20 years. It took the election of a coalition government to put together a committee under the chairmanship of the member for Bendigo, Bruce Reid, and his colleagues to go to the small business community, to identify their concerns, to report back to government and then to have the government in an expeditious way come to one of the most significant policy decisions made by any government post World War II, and certainly in the last 20 years, and that is the policy commitment to introduce a law to provide protection for small business against unconscionable conduct. What a contrast that makes to the failures of the previous Labor government, of which the Leader of the Opposition was a principal member. During all their years in government not only did they dismiss the interests of small business but they spent a lot of time dealing with a lot of people representing big business. If you look back particularly over the late 1980s when there were a lot of large-scale bankruptcies in Australia by certain well-known big business people, you will see they were the associates of the then Labor government. It can hardly be a surprise that some of these people defrauded literally thousands of small businesses. One of the legacies of Labor's time in office was a high level of bankruptcies amongst small business. Not only did Labor give comfort to those practices—because there was a failure to amend the Trade Practices Act—but when you had people like Skase going bust this government basically sat silent and idle as he was able to leave the country with the assets of the small business community. I must say that those in the small business community are angry indeed that this Leader of the Opposition sits there while one of his frontbenchers, the alternate first law officer of the Commonwealth, by his actions still provides protection to his little mate Skase. I say on behalf of the small business community, as their representative within the government and the cabinet, the small business community is angry and demands that you deal with Senator Bolkus, Skase's little mate. It is an absolute outrage that we now find the confidential documents on a court file being released by this man who claims to be the alternate Commonwealth law officer— | Australia | 1,998 |
by leave— I move: That this House censures Senator Nick Bolkus for failing to observe the reasonable standards of behaviour for an alternate first law officer of the Commonwealth. It may be a matter of great amusement to the Australian Labor Party that one of their members has threatened the investigation of Mr Skase. It may be a matter of great amusement to them, it may be a matter of no import to them, it may be something that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) will scurry out of the chamber to avoid rather than listen to, but as far as this side of the House is concerned we believe that, whether you are a big fish or whether you are a little fish, Australia's corporate laws apply to you. We believe that, if there is a person against whom there is a reasonable allegation that they have not observed Australia's Corporations Law, what can be done should be done to bring them to justice. We believe that the small business community of this country deserves to know that everything that can be done within the legal process in this country will be done to ensure that they get some justice. How would you be feeling today if you were a small businessman in Australia who has not had their debts paid by Mr Skase, who can turn on the television at night and can see Mr Skase almost nightly on the video, and you know that the government is doing whatever it can to try to bring him back to Australia to face justice, yet you also know there are senior people in the Australian Labor Party who have taken action which will defray the potential to bring Mr Skase back to justice? What would you be saying to
yourself today? What would you be saying to yourself about Senator Bolkus? But, more importantly, what would you be saying about Mr Kim Beazley? What would you be saying if Senator Bolkus does not have the decency to resign? The Leader of the Opposition should sack him. There come in the lives of Leaders of the Opposition certain tests. Those tests come when they are required to exercise leadership. You can run around the country and say that I am a good bloke. You can run around the country and make all sorts of unfundable promises. But, if you want to be an alternate Prime Minister in this country, the thing that you have got to show more than anything else is strength, and the way you demonstrate strength is by being able to stand up to your colleagues. Unfortunately for Australia, its alternate Prime Minister, its Leader of the Opposition, has failed today. He has failed, and he will not show the kind of strength that is required unless he can summon his courage, take on the factions of the Australian Labor Party and dismiss Senator Bolkus today. This thing started back on 5 January 1998. Senator Bolkus called a press conference basically to try to fit up Senator Amanda Vanstone, the Minister for Justice, for a leak. He called in the press of Australia and he said that there had been a leak, he claimed, by the Minister for Justice—an operational leak which jeopardised the proceedings against Skase. Can you see Senator Bolkus? He is calling in the press to complain about leaks in relation to the Skase matter, but what the press were not prepared for was that they were about to receive the biggest leak of all. Can you imagine the hypocrisy of the situation? `Come to my press conference and listen to me complain about leaks on the Skase matter, and I will give you the biggest leak that you have ever had.'There was a consciousness of guilt. The consciousness of guilt was self-proclaimed. `I can't give you the document,' Senator Bolkus said. On the AAP wire of 4 March 1998, we had the extraordinary position of a spokesman for Senator Bolkus telling the AAP that when Senator Bolkus was asked for his explanation
as to how all of this occurred on 5 January 1998:He told them that the document in question was provided to him through media sources who were already using it and he regarded it as being in the public domain.`He regarded it as being in the public domain.' Listen to these words: I've done nothing wrong. I merely quoted from a document that was on the public record. Did he? If he was quoting from a document on the public record, why did he utter these words: I can't give this document out.`I can't give this document out' meant that he knew that it was not a public document. He said it was not a public document—`I can't give this document out.'It was bad enough on 5 January, but now the cover-up begins. The cover-up begins by saying it was only a public document when he knew and he admitted red-handed that this was no public document—this was a document that could not be given out. Why was it prefaced with the words that it was off the record? I will tell you why it was prefaced with the words that it was off the record. It was to give Senator Bolkus the opportunity to deny that he had done it after the event. `This is off the record,' meant, `Here it is, everybody, and if I am ever asked I never did it.'There was consciousness of guilt right throughout this. As the trustee for the Skase estate creditors said: Of all the information that's been made available to the media, the affidavit material is the most damaging. It was Senator Bolkus who gave the most damaging information to Christopher Skase in relation to the attempt by Max Donnelly to try to secure some justice for the creditors. Far from coming out and apologising, far from doing the decent thing and resigning, Senator Bolkus has attempted to construct this false trail that it was always a public document. We can dispose of that argument in a moment. The Minister for Justice, Senator Vanstone, has been in contact with the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry.
She has asked the court itself whether this was a public document, and in a letter dated 5 March 1998 written by John Mathieson, the District Registrar of the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales District Registry, he says:. . . you asked me to confirm by letter what arrangements are available and what restrictions apply in regard to persons who are not parties to proceedings being granted access at this Registry to documents filed in the Federal Court of Australia and how this would have applied to the affidavit filed in support of the application made by the Trustee in the proceedings currently being heard in this Court in Donnelly v Skase & Ors. Subject to any confidentiality order which may have been imposed, certain documents . . . may be inspected . . . ; however, other documents may not be inspected by a person who is not a party to proceedings unless they have first obtained the leave of the Court. Affidavits are in the latter category. In other words, the only way you can get access to an affidavit in a court proceeding is by leave of the court. The registrar then goes on to say: In the Skase matter, no order has been made granting any person who is not a party to the proceeding leave to inspect the affidavit in question. What that tells you is this: that affidavit should not have been in the hand of Senator Bolkus. The only way that that affidavit could have been in the hand of Senator Bolkus would have been by leave of the court, and leave of the court was not granted. The first thing that we can say about Senator Bolkus is that he was dealing in unauthorised material from the Federal Court of Australia. The alternate first law officer of the Crown gets hold of an affidavit which should not be in his possession and he deals in it. He trafficks in unauthorised documents. That is the first thing that Senator Bolkus does. But not only does he traffic in an unauthorised document—bad enough as that would be for an alternate first law officer of the Crown—the second thing he does, just to make sure that everyone knows it, is to call a press conference, and he walks out to the press conference with this unauthorised document. If you had any doubt about whether or not he knew he was doing the right thing, he actually
came out and told us, `I can't give this document out.' Old son, you couldn't give it out. Not only should you have not given it out but also you should never have mentioned it and you should never have had it. That was the whole point of these particular documents. Why does he do this? He gets an unauthorised document, he calls a press conference, he says, `I can't give it out,' and he wants to read it out. He does it for cheap political advantage in an attempt to frame the Minister for Justice. What are the consequences of what he actually said? He went on to say in his press conference: In terms of secrecy, four courts across the world have deemed it appropriate for the proceedings to be in secret—in Spain, in London and in the Cayman Islands.`Four courts across the world have said this should be secret so I am going to tell the Australian media.'Can you see the hypocrisy of it? Four courts across the world have said that this should be secret. And why should it be secret? Because the moment it was known that proceedings were being taken in Spain, London and the Cayman Islands the first response of anyone who wanted to hide their assets would be to move them and the court orders would be of no effect. So not only does he give the warning that proceedings are proceeding over here in Australia—Mr Skase would have had a fair idea that Australia was doing what it could to bring him to justice—but also, just to give the tip-off, he says, `By the way, look at proceedings in Spain, London and the Cayman Islands.' And he might as well have said, `If you have assets in any of those places, get them out pretty quick.' You might as well have given the tip, `It's in Spain, Cayman Islands and London.' That is why Mr Donnelly says that that is what was damaging about this. Until Senator Bolkus did this, nobody knew. Nobody knew about proceedings in the Cayman Islands until Senator Bolkus came out and said in relation to these particular matters when he read out the affidavit, `If this matter comes to the attention of the respondents and in particular the attention of Mr Skase before the interlocutory orders can be
obtained in all jurisdictions, I have serious concerns that steps will be taken to prejudice the substantive proceedings.' | Australia | 1,998 |
If I were the member for Banks, I would be ashamed of my left wing colleague. I would be absolutely ashamed. We can remember the Left of the Labor Party when they came into this place and steamed about the fact that an envelope had gone into the office of Mr McLachlan and had been opened. We can remember you steaming about that. We can remember you saying what a disgrace it was that a letter that had been received in his office had been opened when it had not been addressed to him. What about a confidential court affidavit which is purloined somehow out of the court and taken by a shadow Attorney-General to a press conference? Where does that stand in the legacy of the Socialist Left order of sins? It is a purloined affidavit. It comes into the hands of the shadow Attorney-General, he calls a press conference and he reads from it. And, out of factional loyalty, the poor old member for Banks, deeply embarrassed by his colleague, pretends there is nothing in it. This is not any old ordinary member of the Socialist Left; this is the man who would be the first law officer of the Crown. This is the man we have seen in recent weeks running around saying that the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) has obligations to ring up High Court judges and disclose material, this is the man who was trying to frame Minister Vanstone on 5 January, and all along we find out that the framer is the instigator. What an attempt to try to throw the light off yourself. The man who is out there with the actual affidavit is Senator Bolkus himself. This is a matter of simple, old-fashioned morality. When the Leader of the Opposition gets up in a moment, listen for these words—listen to him say why it is okay for Senator Bolkus to publish confidential affidavit material in the Australian press. Listen for that explanation. He has his cuttings. He is going to get up and say a lot of things. But listen, members of this House, for this: why
is it moral for Senator Bolkus to take confidential affidavit material and read it out at a press conference? What purpose did it serve? What purpose did it serve to take a confidential affidavit to a press conference? Whose interests did it work out in? | Australia | 1,998 |
Daryl, we are cutting now, aren't we? Tell us why it is that a person who would be the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Crown, would do this. I notice in your interjection that you are not trying to justify it any more. You are now into the tactic of trying to shout down the substance. Well, you won't do it, brother, because in that press conference on 5 January Senator Bolkus had an unauthorised affidavit which he was giving out to the Australian press and there is no justification whatsoever for doing it. What purpose was being served? We know whose interests were being served. Whose interests did it work out in? It worked out in the interests of any person who might be offshore, and who would not have otherwise known that proceedings were going on, to know where those proceedings were. That is whose interests it worked out in. It did not work out in the interests of Australia or Australian small business. It did not work out in the interests of law enforcement or of ensuring proper corporate morality in Australia. It did not work out in the interests of preserving the confidentiality of the court. This was done for one naked reason only. It was thought that this was in the interests of the Labor Party, which lives by the credo `Whatever it takes'. Whatever it takes was the object of Senator Bolkus; whatever it takes in relation to trying to make out a case against Senator Vanstone. If it takes dealing in unauthorised affidavits, we will do that. If it takes off-the-record disclosing of the contents, we will do that. If it means that you could jeopardise an investigation, don't worry about that. And, for all intents and purposes, when you are caught, deny the crime. It is the old Labor tradition. It is the tradition of Carmen Lawrence. It is the old Labor tradition: deny the crime. When she was caught in relation to
matters in here there was no attempt to deal with it. It is the old Labor response. What should happen now is that the Leader of the Opposition ought to step in if the shadow minister cannot do so. There is one person who is responsible for the overall conduct of his front bench. The buck stops with him. He is the Leader of the Opposition. If he cannot discipline Senator Bolkus over this, he is no leader at all. This is the chance, after two years of posturing as a leader, to prove that you can lead. A leader would step in here and a leader would condemn this behaviour. Aside from dismissing Senator Bolkus, have we heard a condemnation of it? Has the Leader of the Opposition had the courage to stand up and say, `I condemn the use of unauthorised affidavits'? Will he have the decency to do that at least? Will he have the decency to come to the dispatch box and say, `I will not defend the indefensible. Whatever I think of Senator Bolkus, it was wrong of him to deal in unauthorised affidavits. I condemn the use of unauthorised affidavits in this way by any person, regardless of how high they may be in the Australian Labor Party'? Will he have the decency to do that? Will he have the decency to come in and say, `If Senator Bolkus can't decide between what is right and what is wrong, I can, and this was wrong'? Will he have the decency to say that? Will he have the decency to come in and say, `I will assert standards in the Labor Party'? Will he have the decency to do that? Will he have the decency to come in and say, `As far as I am concerned, notwithstanding your faction, I will not condone this behaviour'? Will he have the decency to come in and say, `I am going to assert standards and Senator Bolkus has relieved me of the obligation to keep him on my frontbench'?This is now a question of leadership. The Leader of the Opposition cannot walk to this dispatch box and say that it was justified to deal in unauthorised affidavits. He cannot walk to this dispatch box and say that he was justified in helping those forces which might want to keep their assets out of the reach of Australian authorities. He cannot walk to this dispatch box and justify the claim that this
was a public document. He cannot walk up here and maintain that Senator Bolkus was dealing in either his legal or political duty. But he can do one thing as he walks to this dispatch box: he can assert leadership and he can dismiss Senator Bolkus. If he cannot, this Leader of the Opposition is not worth his salt. | Australia | 1,998 |
In politics you never reward cant and hypocrisy. The Treasurer (Mr Costello) in his remarks asked the question: what purpose did this particular affair serve? I ask: what purpose does this particular censure motion serve? It serves this purpose: to conceal the fact that, with or without Senator Vanstone's knowledge, Senator Vanstone's office leaked the affidavit and every other piece of material associated with it to the media. Every single piece of it came from Vanstone's office. If there is any person here to be disciplined for these particular offences it is Senator Vanstone. If we had half a Prime Minister prepared to exercise some authority over Vanstone, there would be another minister to add to the seven that have already gone. The Treasurer tried to suggest that this story began on 5 January. No, it did not, this story did not begin on 5 January. This story in fact began in November 1996, with Attorney-General Daryl Williams arguing that they would drop their investigation of Skase because there was little chance of success. The article states: At the time the Government already had outlaid more than $800,000 in trying to capture Skase and his assets. But images of Skase enjoying an extravagant life in an expensive villa in Majorca, where his neighbours include German supermodel Claudia Schiffer, have caused outrage in Australia. A public outcry about the fugitive businessman escaping without punishment—fuelled by reports of Skase relaxing with his wife Pixie and extended family on the island, where he is regularly seen eating in favoured restaurants and driving a large, late model Mercedes—forced Prime Minister John Howard to order the hunt to continue. These small business people who were being protected by the pursuit of Skase, how protected were they by the pursuit of Skase until we and others raised in this place that drop
ping that particular investigation was not acceptable? You were prepared to ignore the interests of the small businessman and ignore the interests of all those who may have been ripped off by Mr Skase. You were prepared to let it all go by until you were embarrassed. What did that embarrassment produce? What did that humiliation produce? It produced one of the biggest buffoons in ministerial history—Senator Amanda Vanstone—in fear of her reputation and position, getting out there to get her view across. And I return to the story for more evidence of that. Does the story here say `uninformed sources'? Does the story say `opposition sources'? Does the story say `legal sources'? Does the story even say `persons close to Senator Bolkus'? Does the story say `persons close to the Leader of the Opposition'? No. It says this: Government sources said yesterday the minister now is awaiting confirmation legal action can proceed, making it impossible for Skase to gain access to his fortune. To `gain access to the fortune'—what and where? We return to other parts of the story—your persiflage, your smokescreen, your cant and hypocrisy in this place to suggest that we should be disciplining Bolkus when all these documents came out of your government and you know there is an investigation proceeding now on precisely that and how it was. When anything leaks, you always know to ask the question: who benefits? Who benefited from this? Senator Vanstone. `I am now in a position, as you know, of being a bit of a law officer. I may have been punted for my misery as education spokesman but, geez, soft, soppy old Daryl, who could not pursue this, who could not organise a kick in a street fight or lead a colony of ants to lunch, poor old Daryl— | Australia | 1,998 |
We all know when a censure motion has been successfully turned on the movers. That is when the foot soldiers get up and start moving points of order. So I make it complete by moving an amendment: That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: "censures the Prime Minister for his:(1) repeated failure to prevent the Attorney-General—who as the highest law officer in the land has a responsibility not to mislead this House in matters of law enforcement—from impugning the character of Senator Bolkus;(2) repeated attempts to disguise the fact that the Attorney-General, as first law officer of the Commonwealth, has not ensured that Senator Vanstone and her staff are not investigated and held to account for leaking material on the Skase case without any regard to the possible damage they could cause to investigations of the Skase case at some stage prior to 5 Janu
ary 1998 in order to resurrect Senator Vanstone's Ministerial fortunes; and(3) failure to discipline the Attorney-General for his breach of duty as first law officer in failing to take action to protect the integrity and reputation of the High Court (the Callinan matter)".I move that amendment for the reasons that I have been stating in my reply to this. What a misguided action on the part of the government. You know what this is all about. The poor old fellow happens to be Prime Minister of this country. Even Paul Keating managed to lead him by five points up to the election campaign, but he is in the unusual position as Prime Minister of having a bit of trouble on that front with the Leader of the Opposition, and on approvals and disapprovals. I have had a week's worth of slander from the other side, but I tell you this: I am not going to take slander from people who are protecting Skase; who are protecting Skase until we embarrass them and then they reopen that investigation. Then, having had it reopened, they wanted to make the point about the fact that they had had it reopened by letting the public know this. They let the public know what the government strategy was; they let the public know what the government goals were; they let the public know where they had identified the sources of Skase's fortune and where that fortune would be pursued. All of that came out of these particular leaks and all of those were advised leaks from Vanstone's office into the media. You have to absolutely admire them for one thing: they have the guts of burglars. Part of the guts of burglars is to say, `It wasn't me who did it, Mr Police Officer, it was the owner.' You break in, you rip it out, you sling it around and, after you have broken in, ripped it out and slung it around, you say, `The opposition did it, not us. It was the opposition who did it. The opposition compromised this investigation. It was the opposition who put in jeopardy all those small business funds that we're going to encounter.' You might have the guts of burglars but, like burglars, you are going to be identified. You are going to win this paltry censure motion because you have the numbers in this chamber, but everybody in the gallery knows
where those affidavits and everything else came from. Everybody knows! It came from your operation. It was correctly identified out of your operation. As I said, who benefits? You benefited from the leaks but you are not benefiting now. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) started by saying `Never reward cant and hypocrisy,' and today he will not be rewarded. This statement by the Leader of the Opposition comes from someone who has the record of a pattern protector, a man whose record goes back to 1983 and 1984 when the man he was then protecting was none other than Senator Mal Colston. He is a pattern protector as a member of a government that allowed Christopher Skase to take thousands of small business people to bankruptcy and then sat there unable to chase Skase, to bring Skase to justice, and he has the hide to make the claims that he made in the defence of the indefensible Senator Bolkus. He is, of course, now as a pattern protector unable to put the facts before the House that would provide the defence which he claims to have for Senator Bolkus. As I show the facts to the House and demonstrate them, the reality is that this Leader of the Opposition has failed in his duty and failed to deal with a person where the facts of the disclosure and the conduct of Senator Bolkus are on the public record, independently verifiable, as I will show in a moment. To say that the whole cause of this matter was a deliberate leak from the minister's office shows you the incredible lengths to which you people will go to lie, to deceive and to mislead the Australian people. The Leader of the Opposition makes this low claim that this could be sheeted home to the minister's office. Where did the information come from, and what does the newspaper itself say as to this particular information? No wonder he never actually went to the facts in his presentation, because what actually hap
pened is that Minister Vanstone's office received a phone call from the News organisation to advise that they were intending to run a story about what action the Commonwealth may be taking to chase Mr Skase. The minister's response was that it would not be in the public interest to have that information revealed. Not only do I put that in those words but also, in fact, the Daily Telegraph editorial at the time makes this point: We took the decision to publish the report against the wishes of Justice Minister Amanda Vanstone, who expressed a fear that her article would somehow imperil that legal process. Not only didn't she leak it, the newspaper has said so publicly. Furthermore, she went to great lengths on the Sunday night to ring the News organisation to say, `Whatever you do, don't publish this material, because it will provide assistance to Skase.' Let's face it, he has had enough assistance from the Labor Party in the whole time that they were in government. What a disgraceful thing for the Leader of the Opposition to say. What a low claim for him to make. The second part of his defence is to say that it was all in the paper anyway. What is the independent evidence about that? There are two parties relevant to this particular matter: the Commonwealth authority and the trustee who is looking after the interests of those who have lost money. They were the only parties who had knowledge of the proceedings having actually commenced. What this particular release of information did was to provide a lot of material to the Skase interests which would allow them to set up a defence against legal action being taken by the Commonwealth. You do not have to believe me about it. Ask the person who is actually responsible, Mr Donnelly, the trustee of Skase's bankrupt estate. Do not believe Kim Beazley, who would say anything to defend a shadow minister who is indefensible. | Australia | 1,998 |
But never actually addressed the facts. Look at what the trustee said about the affidavit material which is at the heart of this issue. He said, `Of all the information that's been made available to the media, the
affidavit material is the most damaging.' That could not be a clearer statement. The minister is doing everything she can to prevent that material being published, and the trustee of the bankruptcy estate actually makes the point that that is the problem, that it is the material being published out of the affidavit which is the problem. Again on the public record, the Treasurer (Mr Costello) made the point, `We have a photo of the man caught red-handed.' And these are the words he said: `I can't give this document out.' If you believe what the Leader of the Opposition said, it was not only that he could give it out but actually a good idea to give it out, and everybody had it anyway. So why did he use those words, `I can't give this document out, but maybe if I just read it off the record, these are the proceedings in the court'?Of course, the reality is that not only do we have a photo but we have a whole tape. This low-life Senator Bolkus is actually on tape, making his claims against the minister, and then of course saying to them, `Turn your tapes off, boys, ladies and gentlemen, and now I'll give you the stuff that I shouldn't give you; I'll give you the confidential stuff which will give old Skase, me mate in Majorca, a leg-up in defending himself against the claims of the Commonwealth.' What a disgraceful episode by a man who claims to have the status of the alternative law officer. Minister Vanstone never had the affidavit, nor did her department. They never actually had the affidavit. The affidavit was on a court file and we now know that, contrary to the inferences coming from the opposition in the last day or two, no-one else had legal access to it. Under the rules of that particular court, you cannot obtain that particular documentation unless you make an application through the court to a judge or the appropriate person. That must be done before that material can be made available. So, as you go to the facts of this claim that we make against Senator Bolkus, the defences put up by the Leader of the Opposition one by one fall away. So ultimately you are able to in fact sustain the charge that Senator Bolkus was guilty of reckless behaviour, of
jeopardising the pursuit of Christopher Skase, of making deceptive statements. What a dishonourable act it is for him to make claims against a minister that she had leaked the information when it is clear on the public record that is simply not true. The AAP report, again referred to by the Treasurer during question time, leaving open the suggestion that the documentation could be made available was of course nothing other than just a straight outright lie and can be demonstrated to be such by the correspondence from the Federal Court. The fact of the matter is that this particular episode in respect of Mr Skase starts on 4 January, which is the Sunday. The Leader of the Opposition said, `Oh, the Skase matter goes back to decisions we made on funding in 1996.' That really was misleading. Some of us have longer memories than that. We actually remember that the Skase matter goes back to the time that Mr Skase shot through with the money. Who was in government then? None other than the Leader of the Opposition— | Australia | 1,998 |
As has happened with `Dolly' Dunn. Let me come back to that if time permits. Under the umbrella of the generalised comments made about the Skase chase in the paper that morning, he took the opportunity to use that to release the confidential in-camera material that he had obtained from the Federal Court as a means to promote his own political interests, to give himself some coverage and to make a cheap political attack against the minister who was in fact now doing that which Labor never did when they were in office. This is how low these people are. Imagine Christopher Skase: won't he be delighted with the conduct of the affair of this matter by the Labor Party? How many secret donations he must have made to the Labor Party over the years to keep these people in office as the great protectors of those who, through the loopholes of Labor's Corporations Law, were able to escape their liability to the small business and general business community in this country. What we saw here, under the umbrella of this generalised information reported in the press against the interests of the government, was that this low life then took the affidavit material and released it, knowingly doing so in the understanding and belief that it would not further the Commonwealth's claim but could in fact provide assistance and consolation to Skase. That is the low point of this man's contribution. In the light of the stark facts, which are absolutely irrefutable, undeniable and now placed on the public record, it shows you what a weak man we have sitting opposite—a person with a long record of protecting his own, who was unable to put one shred of evidence to support the defence which he put up on behalf of Senator Bolkus, therefore leaving stark naked Senator Bolkus and his greedy, grubby attempt to make a cheap, political point, to give solace and comfort to a man who escaped when Labor was in office but who should be pursued and should not have that pursuit given aid and comfort by a Labor Party, a frontbench and a leader unable to require appropriate standards. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
This is a silly, vulgar, unsubstantiated, theatrical stunt by a government that is desperate for a diversion from its own lamentable failures of leadership that have been spectacularly apparent to everyone in this country for as long as they have been in office, a government desperate to divert attention from its failure to maintain standards of ministerial propriety and integrity as witnessed by the fact that at least seven ministers have now gone in the course of this government's tenure in office, a government desperate to divert attention
from its failures of parliamentary propriety and its incapacity to uphold standards in this place and, in particular, above all else, a government desperate to establish a diversion from the failures of professional conduct by its own first law officer, the Attorney-General (Mr Williams).If the Attorney-General was a serious upholder and defender of legal principle and propriety, where would he be in this debate? He would be leading this debate, he would be seconding this debate, he would be in the forefront of this debate, because the matters in issue are squarely, according to the government, matters that go to high questions of law and principle. But will they allow the Attorney-General to participate in the debate in any kind of a leading, visible role? Of course they will not. What they want more than anything else by this debate, by moving this censure, is a diversion of attention away from the failings of the first law officer. If you are going to mount an exercise of this kind, if you are going to have a censure motion of this kind, if you are going to mount a credible assault of this kind, then you have got to have four things. You have got to have a crime. Well, yes, there was a crime here—the revelation of the reality of the imminence of legal action against Skase and the warning that was given to him, as a result, by that material getting into the public domain of the likelihood of that action and the opportunity that gave him to prepare a course of retreat. Yes, it was serious. The second thing is that you have to have a victim, and the victim here was manifestly the interests of the Australian public in this material getting into the public domain. There is no argument about that; there is no doubt about that. It was a very serious problem to have this material out there because it was prejudicial to the public interest. But you have also got to have a credible suspect—someone on whom you can pin the damage if you are going to mount an assault of this kind in this place. The truth of the matter is that the real suspect here is not Senator Bolkus—who is the target of this censure motion—but, rather, the Minister for Justice (Senator Vanstone) herself, those in her office and those associat
ed with her who were desperate to mount some silly exercise in public in order to establish their own reputation as crime busters, their own reputation as substantial pursuers of the public interest. It was an utterly misconceived and utterly stupid enterprise, but an enterprise nonetheless that is unquestionably and can unquestionably be sheeted home to the minister herself. Finally, if you are going to mount this exercise, you have got to have something to actually link the suspect to the crime. What is there on all the publicly available evidence linking the suspect to the crime? It is there in the very language of the Daily Telegraph article on the morning of 5 January when the only sources that are referred to, as the leader has said, anywhere in the course of this article are government sources. If you are looking for evidence, that is the evidence that is there on the public record. It is a bit like the old Jewish definition of chutzpah. The old Jewish definition, you remember, is of a man who murders both his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. This is the kind of chutzpah that we are seeing from the government today; that is the kind of chutzpah we are seeing in this particular motion. They are desperate for a diversion away from their own political problems, their own failures of leadership, their own failures of integrity and their own failure of defence of legal principle by their own first law officer. They are trying to throw that diversion onto someone else who manifestly does not deserve anything like that attention—who does not deserve any attention at all. Let me tell you why. Let us just go quietly and meticulously through the nature of the charges being made against Senator Bolkus. The first thing that is being implied about Senator Bolkus is that he is obviously the source of this whole leak, he must be the subject of some serious investigation, he has done something terribly wrong. Well, let me tell you that it is now a matter of public record that Senator Bolkus is not, and has not been, the subject of a police investigation. He has been told today by the Australian Federal Police—and he has just gone out and made a
public statement to that effect—that he is not the subject of any police investigation. Can you say that about Senator Vanstone? Can you say that about anyone in the minister's office? Can you say that about anyone on the government side? Who is leaking? Who is being investigated? Whoever it is, it is not Senator Bolkus. He has been cleared by the Australian Federal Police. So just put that in your pipe and smoke it because that is a very crucial foundation for this whole argument. Then, of course, we have the argument that what was disclosed was sensitive material that was going to prejudice the pursuit of Christopher Skase. If Senator Bolkus was disclosing material that could be so characterised that he was adding something new and significant to the public record, yes, there would be some question that could probably be raised about him, and it would be a matter for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) to discuss the issue with him and act appropriately and accordingly. But nothing of the kind occurred. The truth of the matter is that everything that Senator Bolkus had to say was already out there on the public record. Anything that could possibly significantly have added to the capacity to prepare a defence, to prepare a line of retreat, by Christopher Skase was already there on the public record that morning. It was already there in the article by David Luff in the Daily Telegraph, sourced from government sources—it says as much in the course of the article. Nobody has suggested that Senator Bolkus was the source of that article. Nobody who got up here today was suggesting that he was directly the source of it. Of course, you could not, because there is no evidence whatsoever for that. Let us focus on what was in that article by David Luff because that is the substance and the nub of the allegation about a crime being committed here or an offence against public decency and integrity in the Australian national interest. The crime was a story to be given that the Skase hoard had been found. That was the subject of the story in the Daily Telegraph that morning before Nick Bolkus gave his press conference. It was headed `Skase hoard found'.The first thing that was in the story that was absolutely crucial was the nature of the action. We were told that there was a legal action set in train. Not just that there had been some investigation—that was not news; everyone knew about that. Of course, there had been an investigation going on for months. The story, which appears in the second paragraph of this article, was that legal action had commenced—court action had commenced. That was the important tip-off. That was the new news. That was the critical thing that was important for Skase not to know. It is right there on the public record; it is right up front; it is the centrepiece of the story. Then this article went to the location of the assets. We are told that there was a lot of significant material in the affidavit about that. Maybe there was, but it was already here in this particular article, which said:. . . Skase has held bank accounts in Switzerland, Austria, England, Spain and the Cayman Islands. There it is clearly set out on the public record—the location of the Skase assets. What were the goals of the particular legal enterprise that had been set in train by the government? Again, they were absolutely clearly and explicitly articulated as the leader spelt out earlier on. The article said: Once Skase's assets are frozen, the Government will attempt to liquidate the funds and return them to Australia to help pay back Qintex creditors . . .So it goes on for paragraphs describing what the nature of the legal exercise is and how it is proposed to set about the strategy of dealing with this particular case. It sets out the course of the investigation to date. It is quite explicit, in fact, about every key element that Christopher Skase and his legal advisers would need to know if they were going to be in a position to gird their loins and prepare themselves against the kind of legal assault that the Australian government was mounting. What was the source of all this? It certainly was not Senator Bolkus. He did not speak to David Luff. He has denied that absolutely on the public record, in the parliament and everywhere else. Obviously David Luff, the Daily Telegraph journalist, came by this material from a government source. It gives
it away in the course of the article. The documentation on which the story is based is documentation that could only have come from inside the government—from the minister's office or people with access to the material who obviously, again, are squarely located in the minister's office. Why did Nick Bolkus do as he did in talking to the press on that particular morning? He was using the material that was widely by then in circulation, that was all around the press gallery—it certainly was in some other sources in the press gallery because that was the source of Nick Bolkus himself getting hold of the material—to make the critical point that this material was out. It was extraordinary that it was out in the public domain. It could have only one source—a government source. It was overwhelmingly likely and probable that that source was the minister or the minister's own office. It was absolutely outrageous for the minister, her office and those supporting her to be big-noting themselves in this way, to be embarking on a newspaper leak of their own, in order to identify what great public servants they were, what great defenders of the Australian national interest they were, when, of course, the effect of them big-noting themselves in that way, the effect of self-serving publicity of that kind, was absolutely counterproductive in terms of protecting the Australian national interest. It was one of the most grotesque and vulgar self-serving publicity and self-promotion stunts of all time—the leaking of this material that the Skase chase was on again and Mandy was out there leading the charge. That was the message they wanted to get out. That was the message that did get out. It was a crazy message, and it was the point of Nick Bolkus's press conference that morning—to make exactly that point. What this is all about, as we have said, is a very feeble attempt to divert attention from what has been a very bad week and a very bad year, in fact, for this government—where the failures of leadership have been manifest as far as the eye can see, where the failures to protect integrity and standards in government have been as clear as it is possible to
imagine, and where, in particular, the failure that has been most spectacularly apparent of all in very recent times has been that of the first law officer himself. This attempt to divert attention from the failings of the first law officer is what, above all else, this is all about. The government has been stung and the Attorney has been stung by the allegations that have quite properly been made about his own conduct, his own propriety and his own inability and unwillingness to defend the public interest. We saw the first really spectacular example of that last year after a number of lesser peccadilloes in his absolute failure to protect the Australian Law Reform Commission's right, indeed duty, to draw to public attention in the Wik debate the reservations, the anxieties and the concerns—well founded as a matter of law—it had about the constitutionality of the Wik legislation. After a tradition of 21 years of the Law Reform Commission making representations to parliamentary committees, after 24 such submissions having previously been made by the Law Reform Commission to parliamentary committees, we had this Attorney-General interfering—no doubt wimping it, as usual, under the direction of the Prime Minister—and utterly failing to uphold and protect the standards of decency, integrity, free speech and understanding of the issues that should be absolutely central to his conception of office. But then, of course, we saw the biggest and most outrageous default of duty of all. It has all been out there on public display over the last couple of weeks. I am talking about the absolute failure of the Attorney-General to uphold his duty as first law officer of this country in relation to the Callinan affair. We have had allegations about Senator Bolkus on the ground on his irresponsibility. The real irresponsibility was that involved in this Attorney-General doing the following things. First of all, the newly appointed High Court judge, product of the National Party and the Prime Minister—not, I readily acknowledge, the Attorney-General's own judgment—made a grotesque and shocking error of judgment in failing to disqualify himself from the Hindmarsh case, when
everyone in this country knew as a matter of public record that he had been involved as an adviser to the government on the legal issues that are concerned. | Australia | 1,998 |
I am making the point, to pursue it no further, that there was a terrible, shocking error of judgment and one that had the real capacity to put at risk not only the reputation of the judge but also, more crucially, the integrity, reputation and character of the High Court itself. The point about it is that the Attorney-General knew from the outset—and certainly knew, on his own admission in this place a few days ago—that Justice Callinan had misdirected himself in the hearing on 5 February when he was determining that he was not to be disqualified. He had misdirected himself by failing to recollect the nature of his involvement in that earlier Hindmarsh Island case advice giving—that he had, in fact, been the primary subject of a request by the minister to give that advice. His advice had been given to the minister. It was all there on the public record and it made it impossible and untenable for the judge to stay in that position in the light of that. The Attorney-General knew that. He has admitted it. I turn to the third thing the Attorney-General did. Knowing that, he did absolutely nothing to correct the situation, not only before the judge made his decision not to disqualify himself but after he had made the decision, when there was no conceivable excuse for not drawing it to the attention of the court. You failed in your duty. You had available the information which would have corrected the alarming situation which had developed. You failed in your duty as law officer to use that information. You did so because you feared for your political life if you did. What you did in this case—what you failed to do—showed a spectacular, irresponsible lack of integrity, lack of judgment and lack of guts. For you or anyone on your side of government to now accuse, against that background of demeaning failure to play the proper role
that a first law officer should, and to make a charge of the kind you have against Senator Bolkus is frankly contemptible and irresponsible. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)86AYESAbbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Filing, P. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S.* McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.44NOESAdams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.*Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilton, G. S.PAIRSAnderson, J. D. Lawrence, C. M.Sullivan, K. J. Smith, S. F.* denotes teller | Australia | 1,998 |
The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)86AYESAbbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Baldwin, R. C. Barresi, P. A.Bartlett, K. J. Billson, B. F.Bishop, B. K. Bradford, J. W.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Filing, P. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S.* McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. Miles, C. G.Moore, J. C. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.44NOESAdams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.*Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilton, G. S.PAIRSAnderson, J. D. Lawrence, C. M.Sullivan, K. J. Smith, S. F.* denotes teller | Australia | 1,998 |
A week is a long time in politics, but the problem for this government is that two years is a political lifetime. As one sat in this House this week, one would have thought that this government had only just been elected to office. The problem is that we now have a government in self-denial, self-denial on one of the most fundamentally important issues that this government has to face up to: the issue of jobs and job security. It is that context that I seek to address this afternoon: the failure of the government to provide appropriate employment services. In doing so, I want to refer to the absolute failure of this government to face up to its responsibilities to not only deliver adequate and quality employment services but also to make any inroads into making further progress on the success of the previous government to create jobs in Australia and to build a sense of job security in Australia. Two years ago the Howard government was elected on the basis that it promised the world to the Australian people. The record will show an abysmal failure in respect of some of the fundamental issues. We had a Prime Minister (Mr Howard) this week who was seeking to suggest that he sits on this side of
the House and that the Labor Party sits on the other side of the House on the Treasury benches. That is what it is about: a Prime Minister in self-denial, a Prime Minister who has not faced up to the fact that he is not only the member for Bennelong but, more importantly, he is the Prime Minister of Australia. In that context it is high time that he accepted his responsibilities to lead, give direction and make some hard decisions aimed at creating a sense of security and stability in the eyes of Australians, especially Australian families. We are in the home straight. Two years is a political lifetime. This government has done everything but announce the next election date. We are not looking at a lean, mean machine on the other side of the House; we are looking at a mangy draft horse that is looking for excuses as to why it is not responsible for its failures over the last two years but someone else is responsible for its inadequacies in government. In October 1996, in response to a question I posed about the issue of unemployment, the Prime Minister said that he thought we should not ask a question about the issue of jobs until after at least 12 months of being in government. It is no longer 12 months; it is 24 months that this government has been in office. What do we get from the Prime Minister this week—a Prime Minister who is a member of a fairly selective club? This Prime Minister is a member of a club which is not great in number, but during the election campaign he deliberately deceived the Australian public about the size of the deficit in the lead-up to the 1993 election. The member for Goldstein (Dr Kemp), as a close friend of the Prime Minister, knows that I am correct. He then suggested to the Australian public that we did not have a deficit, knowing full well that, in Australian terms today, we had a deficit of the order of $25 million. He might be a member of a select club, but the facts speak for themselves. All this Prime Minister could offer yesterday, in response to a question going to the government's performance on the issue of jobs—and especially youth unemployment—and in response to the fact that youth unemployment is getting worse in Australia was the suggestion that the govern
ment has a new approach to apprentices and trainees that will create `100,000—not 10,000, not 20,000—new apprenticeships'.He then went on to talk about the expansion of mutual obligation. The centrepiece of their activity is not to create jobs but to blame the victim, not to create decent opportunities aimed at leading to real jobs—but the work for the dole scheme. We will have a bit of a discussion this afternoon not about mutual obligation—the one-way street: pointing the finger and blaming the victim; blaming the unemployed and their families—but, more importantly, about a centrepiece of real determination and commitment by government to actually do something about the unemployed—the issue of reciprocal obligation. I actually want to go to the facts. The facts have to be put on the table because we have got a government in self-denial—a government trying to suggest that two years is not a political lifetime, that really they are still in opposition, and that they have not made decisions over the last two years. Let us go over this government's record on jobs because it is central to the debate about the need to provide appropriate employment services. Let us go to the government's performance in its first 23 months on the issue of total jobs growth: 181,300 compared to the last Labor government's record on full-time jobs in its last 23 months of over 514,000 jobs. Let us go to full-time jobs growth. In the first 23 months of the Howard government—with the architect of employment growth in place, the member for Goldstein—what do we get? We get 91,000 full-time jobs. The previous Labor government: over 326,000 full-time jobs. | Australia | 1,998 |
I suppose it was a good start for this Prime Minister because, after all, in the lead-up to the 1983 election not only did he deliberately deceive the Australian public about the size of the deficit, but he also created economic and social chaos in Australia, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, industrial war, a lack of investment and no economic growth. Let us go to the issue of part-time jobs growth. The first 23 months, with the
economic expert, the member for Goldstein, in the saddle: 90,400. The Labor Party, in the last 23 months: over 187,000 jobs. The Prime Minister said at the National Press Club, in his last major statement before the last election, that he would be a very disappointed man—can't you see him stomping around the Press Club?—if he did not make serious inroads into reducing youth unemployment. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, the record speaks for itself: we have gone backwards. Youth unemployment has jumped by 2.3 per cent. That is two years of economic experts and the Prime Minister leading this country. He calls it leadership—youth unemployment is worse. But it would be even worse on the unemployment front if this government had not actually engineered a fall in the participation rate, set up barriers to women participating in the work force and created a lack of confidence in the Australian economy—because the fall in the participation rate is 0.6 per cent. The unemployment rate would be worse today if this government had not deliberately pursued a set of policies aimed at encouraging Australian women to fall out of the work force and aimed at making it difficult for people to actually get back to work. Then we go to the question of employment services and the needs of young people, the needs of—in most cases—married women trying to go back to work, the needs of Defence spouses trying to get back into the work force, and the needs of retrenched workers trying to get back into the work force. We go to the issue of training places. The member for Goldstein is a real performer, as he hangs his head in shame at the table this afternoon. What has the member for Goldstein done? The member for Goldstein, in association with Mandy—and we all know about Three Strikes Mandy, who has not only deliberately deceived the Australian parliament and the Australian people on numerous occasions, but is also now responsible for leaking sensitive information on sensitive prosecutions— | Australia | 1,998 |
I make the necessary withdrawal and in doing so refer to the appropriate facts. Let us go to this government's performance with respect to training places for young people. They have chopped 117,000 training places. We talk about their new apprenticeship scheme. The facts show that there are 4,000 fewer traditional four-year apprenticeships today than during the last 12 months of the last government. Let us go to the issue of growth in traineeships. In the last year of Labor in government: 100 per cent growth in traineeships. What is this government's performance? Sixteen per cent growth. They talk about a commitment to young unemployed in Australia and the question of looking after Australia's unemployed. The problem for the Prime Minister is that he made statements in the lead-up to the last election, and those statements are now coming back to haunt him. I refer, for instance, to the Prime Minister's attendance at the National Press Club on 28 February 1996, when he said: We have a plan. We have a commitment. We have a determination and we have a will to do something about reducing the tragically high levels of youth unemployment in our community. He almost sounds like Winston Churchill. With winter coming on, we will soon have him fronting up to parliament in an oversized overcoat with a hat on his head—that will be the new make-up—and a cigar hanging out of the side of his mouth. That is what it is about: self-denial and an endeavour to mislead the Australian public with respect to the performance of this government. I think it is about time that this government fronted up to the fact that its new employment services activities are creating havoc for Australia's unemployed and their families. That is what they are doing. They have reduced opportunities for Australia's unemployed to get back to work. They have reduced the right of Australians to have a helping hand from government to assist them in getting back to work. The commercial employment market, the public employment market and the community services employment market are in disarray. All the government can talk about, pointing the finger, is mutual obligation. There is no reciprocal obligation, no duty on government to offer a helping hand. Irrespective of whether you are on benefits or unemployed or where you live in Australia, you are entitled to quality services and you are not required, as has occurred in Western Australia, where it is illegal, despite the pronouncements of the member for Goldstein, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, to put your hand in your pocket and pay for employment services. Do you know what it reminds me of? Dr Hewson and the GST. Every time you put your hand in your pocket, Dr Hewson's hand was there, too. Now, every time you put your hand in your pocket, Dr Kemp's mangy little hand is there, too, trying to make it harder for you to get back to work and trying to make it more difficult for Australian families. That is what it is about. There is no concern for Australia's unemployed and their families, no concern for regional Australia and no concern for the western suburbs of Melbourne or Brisbane— | Australia | 1,998 |
Or for the western suburbs of Sydney. That is what it is about. Walk away from your responsibilities. Come in here with a set plan to blame the opposition for your failures. It is an ugly ideology represented by an ugly government without any commitment to quality or sense of community in Australia. Let us go to the issue of Western Australia. An unemployed welder fronts up to the CES and says, `I am interested in a job.' The CES,
unfortunately, has to say, `You're not on benefits'—it is bad enough that you are out there looking for a job—`and the member for Goldstein has said that you are not entitled to unemployment assistance.' You can touch the screen, but you cannot have the job—that is what they are saying. He then gets referred to an employment service. When he gets there the employment service says, `You're unemployed. We do have a job, but you're not on benefits so you are not entitled to a free employment service. But, if you put Dr Kemp's hand in your pocket and produce $220, I might let you buy the job.' After the next election it will be $220 with a GST. Dr Kemp's hand will be there, fiddling with the coins. I know who has been discounted: it is the Australian public and their sense of community and desire to assist the disadvantaged in the Australian community. It is about time this community faced up to the fact that we are in the home straight. It is not a lean, mean machine on that side of the House; it is a mangy looking draughthorse with no sense of community, no sense of understanding about the needs of the unemployed, no willingness to assist working people to get back to work and no willingness to ensure that there are reasonable community, public and private employment services. That is what the debate is about: investing in Australia's unemployed. It is not about pointing the finger. It is not about mutual obligation, but reciprocal obligation. It is about a requirement for government to give Australian workers and their working families their rights, a helping hand from the Commonwealth government. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I do not think that sort of empty rhetoric without facts would have even impressed them in the Trades Hall down in Melbourne. The member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) asked rhetorically—and it was all rhetoric—what is the government's record? Let us put one fact on the record before I start talking about their record. The fact is that the unemployment rate we have today is the
lowest unemployment rate for seven years in Australia. Over the last five months, we have had 150,000 new jobs created and, of those, 116,000 have been full-time jobs. That compares with a net 16,000 full-time jobs created across the whole of the last six years of the Labor government. We have had 116,000 net new full-time jobs in the last five months and they managed a net 16,000 full-time jobs in six years. There is no credibility whatever on the part of the member for Batman or the Labor Party when it comes to unemployment. During the recession that we `had to have', the Labor Party destroyed 338,900 jobs. When the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) was minister for employment, he bumped up long-term unemployment by 95,000. Youth unemployment was 32 per cent. He had a million people unemployed, with unemployment at over 11 per cent. They had a system for supposedly helping unemployed people back into jobs which churned them around in training programs, which did not lead to real jobs and which demoralised a generation of young people. They were an utter failure, despite the billions of dollars that they threw at the problem—money they took out of the pockets of Australian families. It is interesting to look at the record of Working Nation, where continuing increases in expenditure did not lead to more placements in full-time jobs. What the Labor Party regarded as success, and all the performance indicators that they used for their training programs, had nothing to do with placing people into full-time jobs or with getting them off benefits. They regarded it a success if you got someone into their short-term training programs. They were not interested in the fact that unemployed people in this country wanted real jobs. That was our commitment at the last election: to do away with this constant churning of the unemployed which had one objective and one objective only—to try to manipulate the unemployment statistics in the run-up to the last election. They failed. The hundreds of millions of dollars they took out of the pockets of Australian families, which we have now returned to Australian families, did not achieve the result that they wanted. Unemployment remained totally and
unacceptably high. Under their policies they were so concerned with churning people that the actual share of labour market assistance to long-term unemployed people fell. The member for Batman, who has one of the few jobs the trade union movement managed to get for its favoured sons when they got him into parliament, and the member for Hotham (Mr Crean), the other President of the ACTU they managed to get into parliament, supported a labour market program that cost $500 million in the last year of the Labor government. It had a four per cent net success rate: you were four per cent more likely to get a job in the program than if you had no program whatever. That was $143,000 a net job. They were on their way to bankrupting Australia. That is why the Leader of the Opposition was a member of a government which had $23 billion of deficits in the last couple of years when he was Minister for Finance. The Labor Party hold the unemployed in this country in contempt. They think that they can continue with these rhetorical appeals as if they are doing something to help, when unemployed people in Australia were clamouring for a change. Unemployed people in the country now have hope because they see that this government is putting in place a policy to help them get jobs whereby providers of these services are actually competing to get an unemployed person to walk through their door. They understand that under the government's arrangements in the Job Network—the magnificent social reform that commences on 1 May—you get paid only if you get someone a job. You get paid on results. It is a performance based system. We have put in place an outstanding process to select the best people in Australia to provide those services. Every one of them had to go through a rigorous process to test their financial viability. Every one of them had to put forward a strategy to help unemployed people in their area. Every one of them had to undertake to provide satisfactory access for unemployed people to their services. They had to demonstrate their experience. | Australia | 1,998 |
And they competed with each other on a fair and equal playing field to get
those contracts. We had a very high quality tender. The government was very fortunate to be in the position of being able to select the very best people around Australia to provide the services of the Job Network. Unemployed people will have many more job vacancies as a result of the efforts of the 306 providers that we have contracted. I do not criticise the people at the CES at all. Many of them slaved their guts out to get jobs for unemployed people. But a weakness of the CES was that those people were operating in a system that was not geared to performance or to providing people with the best chance of getting a job. The new Job Network will have many more job vacancies than the 20 per cent the CES had. Instead of the fewer than 300 sites that the CES provided, unemployed people in the Job Network will be able to go to 1,404 sites around Australia—more than four times the number of points of access for unemployed people to get job assistance. Unemployed people in those areas in the west of Melbourne and Sydney, areas which have traditionally been represented by the Labor Party and where, very significantly, unemployment is at its worst, will benefit. We have just had 13 years of Labor government. You go into the electorates of these people and you wonder what on earth they did over 13 years. That is because they do not put into place policies that help their constituents. They do not care about the level of unemployment. They are so cynical that they think they can continue to convince their people to vote for them even if they do not deliver because they can scare them with what the government is going to do. The Labor Party's traditional voters gave them a pretty solid message at the last election. They told the Labor Party where to go. They want jobs and they want a government that can create jobs. And this government is creating jobs. It has got rid of the Labor Party's job-destroying unfair dismissals law. I do not know if it is a direct link but we have had 116,000 new full-time jobs since we took that decision. Up until then we largely had only part-time jobs coming through. Overwhelmingly now the new jobs have been full time. The unemployed people of this country want a government that cares for them and does not treat them with contempt and cynicism in the way that the Labor Party does. It is interesting to hear the sorts of expressions about the unemployed that the member for Batman has used. He said, on 10 February last year, criticising the unemployed on one of the many occasions when he has done so, `They go home and go back to bed or watch TV for the rest of the week.' He is basically saying that the unemployed are dole bludgers. | Australia | 1,998 |
It is supposed to be the party of social justice and yet the great social justice reform in employment is the reform this government is bringing into place, the reform that is geared at last to get unemployed people into real jobs—as is our apprenticeship system, as are our vocational education programs in schools and as is our national plan to give literacy and numeracy skills to every young Australian. It is the greatest social justice measure in education that we have seen in decades—opposed by the Labor Party. It is this government that treats unemployed people with respect. The member for Batman just says that they go home and watch TV, and on 26 February this year he said, in relation to unemployed people using our system, `They will seek to get on to welfare even if they have to cheat to get there.' So not only are unemployed people lazy in the eyes of the member for Batman but they are cheats as well, and that is not the view of this government at all. Unemployed people in this country want to work. They want to put something back into their community. They are pleased with the policies of this government, which give them the chance to get valuable work experience through work for the dole, but more than anything else they want jobs. They want real jobs. They want the kind of training that leads on to real jobs. They do not want the expensive Labor Party training schemes which churn you around and dump you back on the end of the queue. They do not want to go to a government monopoly service that many of
them felt did not give them the kind of service that they wanted. | Australia | 1,998 |
The fact is that what we are saying is so unpalatable to these neo-ideologues on the other side that they just have these break-outs of madness. What we heard from the minister was another one of his break-outs of madness. The minister comes in here and thinks that he can stand up and spout five minutes of rubbish and 200 statistics at question time and everyone will say, `That was very erudite. He's got a PhD so he must have been telling the truth,' but the trouble is that within some of the things he says there is a grain of truth but very little else. The only grain of truth in the last 15 minutes was that young people want jobs but the trouble is, and he knows it, that young
people will not get jobs in the market madness that he has introduced in the last few days. We have seen ideology gone mad in this proposal because in the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, we have the driest of the dry, the narrowest of the narrow and the most ideological minister in this government. He thinks that if we go out there and say, `There are more people who will compete to get your body to find you a job,' that will somehow or other solve the problem. If he had done that in a trial program to test it, he might have some evidence to show that it is true. The trouble is he has dismantled the whole of the system in this country and thrown it into absolute chaos, just so he can say that he was right. He is wrong, and I would like to demonstrate how wrong he is with some examples from the region in Australia where I live. I want to take up his suggestion of a few moments ago to the shadow minister that we ought to talk about Mr Roude, because Mr Roude shows how absolutely wrong his proposal is. The south-west suburbs of Sydney that I represent have one of the highest rates of unemployment in the country, particularly for young people. In December 1997, the Canterbury-Bankstown area had the lowest participation rate in the work force—lower than the national average, lower than the New South Wales average and the lowest in Sydney. The minister's department has advised that the unemployment rate has increased in the south-west by 17 per cent since the end of the 1996-97 financial year. So much for the minister's statements about how they have created jobs! If they have created jobs, they certainly have not created those jobs in south-west Sydney. The figures for youth unemployment in south-west Sydney are even worse. Canterbury-Bankstown has the highest youth unemployment rate in Sydney—28.6 per cent. There was a kernel of truth in what the minister said: young people want jobs. There is no doubt about that. But they are not going to get them under this government and they are not going to get them under the minister's current crazy scheme. Unemployment services of high quality are what the people of my electorate need. The high rate of unemployment is due in no small part to the high levels of people who came to Australia and came to my electorate from non-English speaking backgrounds. The inner west of Sydney has always been a focus for new migrants coming to that city. The Canterbury area has people from over 132 different nationalities. Some are recent arrivals but many have been here for several years. People from non-English speaking backgrounds are at a particular disadvantage when seeking employment, and they make up the largest identifiable group within the unemployed. But that would not worry the minister all that much because until he and his government started down the so-called path of reform of employment services my area was serviced by several CES offices and a number of skillshare operations—all of which were very successful in placing long-term unemployed people. The skillshare organisations consistently exceeded the targets set under the skillshare agreement, and they provided professional services to an area which has more than its fair share of difficulties. A number of the skillshare organisations in my electorate joined together to tender for business in the south-west to provide employment services. This group of non-profit community based organisations had a history of successful placement of long-term unemployed from people of non-English speaking backgrounds. Many had been in operation for more than 10 years. They were supported in their bid by the local councils. These were organisations that had runs on the board. But unfortunately for them they were overlooked by the minister's department for Mr Roude. Mr Roude came on the scene. | Australia | 1,998 |
Mr Roude was the man that the minister's department gave $1 million to to provide 12 unemployment sites in south-west Sydney—$1 million for 12 sites. And what is Mr Roude's track record? The minister said in his contribution a few minutes ago that this was a rigorous assessment process. The minister said that they got the best people in Australia through this
process. He said that they were high quality. What he did not tell the House was that all those people who applied in these rounds for funding were told that if they told anyone that they did not think they were successful they would never get into the second round. At the time a lot of people wondered why this secrecy provision was there. But now Mr Roude has surfaced we know why it was there—because the fix was in. What we had was this ideologically driven minister whose market madness was that cheap was best. The skillshare projects in my electorate have been closed down, the CESs have been truncated, and Mr Roude has $1 million to provide for 12 sites. We do not have CES offices anymore; we have sites. What is Mr Roude's site? Mr Roude's site is a home unit in Lakemba. Does he have a bank of phones? No, he has one phone. Does he have a lot of employees? No, he has himself. Has he been big in this? Has he been into this area of operation all his life? No, he says that he is a social worker type of person. That is what he says he is—a social worker type of person. He does not say that he is social worker, but he has a certificate in marketing—and he has certainly marketed himself to this mug over here, because he gave him $1 million to sit in a home unit in Lakemba and help the unemployed. He was not even unemployed himself. He has not even taken himself off the market. He is a bit of a thief because he stole the submission of the organisation that he worked for and he undercut them. But, as the minister said, he is the best in Australia! He is high quality! There was a rigorous assessment! Because the opposition have been pressing this matter, not because the minister thought so, the government finally decided to investigate him. What happened here? What is Mr Roude doing? He is running around my electorate today, right now, trying to sign up the skillshare organisations who did not get the tender to do his job, and he is going to ask muggins's department to allow him to do it. So they are going to give him $1 million to go and sign up the people who are doing the job at a cut rate and he will take a profit. If the government is serious and sincere about
this, what the minister will do is cut out the middleman and reopen those tenders. What I have to say to the House is that this is the tip of the iceberg. The minister knows it, we are on to it and over the next few weeks we are going to expose this market madness of this mad marketeer over there and show that this scheme is something that is going to cause great angst for unemployed people in Australia and great problems for the government. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
This matter of public importance is so important that the mover of it left the chamber after he had finished his speech. The member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) regards this matter as so important that he lodged it today at the Table Office, gave his speech, listened to the speech of the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) and, when one of his own members rose to speak on the matter, left the chamber. I think that speaks volumes for the level of genuineness about the Labor Party's concern and so-called care for young Australians who are unemployed. The member for Batman in his contribution said that two years is a political lifetime. If that is true, one wonders how long 13 years of Labor darkness must have seemed to the young unemployed who were unemployed in that period. They got little meat from the government at that time, only gruel. He actually had the gall to claim that Labor had created real jobs and real training programs. Yet they finished 1995 having spent $2.7 billion on employment programs, and unemployment had gone up. The ALP are always talking about jobs growth, but why don't they
talk about the fact that in the 13 years of your government the average was 8.5 per cent unemployment for 13 years. In July 1992 they should have hung their heads in shame because they managed to achieve 34.5 per cent youth unemployment. The member for Batman neglected to deal at all with any of the facts in the employment or education areas. He spent his entire time talking rhetoric, and that was very well exposed by the member for Goldstein, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. The member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay), on the other hand, gave a speech which he could easily have given in the adjournment debate. He obviously forced his way in as the Chief Opposition Whip because he had not had a good run in the adjournment debate in recent times and forced them to allow him to give a speech about southern Sydney which he could have given in any adjournment debate. He gave not one shred of evidence, no information whatsoever, that would elucidate to the House why the Labor Party has returned to the theme of claiming the mantra of social justice and caring for the young unemployed, given its paltry record over 13 years. This government is trying to genuinely help young people. We have a fully integrated approach to cater for every type of pursuit that young people could try to follow in order to get a job in the future. We are doing this through a number of means. One of those is the reforms to the CES, the Job Network, the establishment of Employment National and 306 private providers and the abolition of Labor's Working Nation program. Let us briefly refer to the Working Nation program. This is the great edifice that the Labor Party holds up of their enormous success in jobs growth. They never talk about unemployment or jobs; they only talk about jobs growth. Working Nation was a monumental flop, which was perfectly well accepted by the Australian people. The member for Hotham (Mr Crean) sold the ALP and the Australian people a lemon. It churned young people from one training program to another training program and did nothing to improve unemployment after its four years. It was a $10
billion spending disaster. In 1995, just to take one year, over 50 per cent of people who had done jobstart training were still unemployed after three months of their training program finishing. In 1995-96 the ALP spent $2.7 billion in that year alone on the Working Nation program and returned not one job decrease in unemployment at the end of that year. We are trying to do many things to improve the job chances of young people, and they are not just with respect to the Job Network and the changes we have made in this area, which is a $1.7 billion commitment which is results driven and will give the unemployed three to four times more opportunities to visit sites to find jobs around Australia and will massively increase the paltry 20 per cent of available advertisements that the CES managed in its last year. For that reason it has been warmly welcomed by employers, who, sadly, had lost faith in the CES after 50 years. We are also doing other things. We are changing and reforming the apprenticeship and traineeship system. In the next two years we will create 220,000 new places for apprenticeships, which is a 60 per cent increase in funding and a 48 per cent increase in numbers. In terms of the traineeships which were talked about earlier by the member for Batman, traineeship commencements this year increased by 44 per cent on 1996-97. We are encouraging young people through the common youth allowance to understand that the dole is not a viable option to improving themselves through education. We are trying to make them stay at school through the common youth allowance, when they are 16 or 17, to improve their chances of getting a job, because every shred of evidence indicates to the government that, if you stay at school until year 12, you will have a much greater opportunity to get a job than if you leave when you are 15.We are not just doing this and forcing people to stay at school. If they can get training, if they can get an apprenticeship or a traineeship or indeed a job, we do not require them to stay at school. We are giving extra funding to the schools to make sure that when this influx of new students remains at
high school they are not a burden on the system but can be coped with by the system. We have also put into schools $187 million of vocational education and training funding over the next four years— | Australia | 1,998 |
Over four years. We have also introduced the jobs pathway programs to help school leavers who have done vocational education and training get a job once they leave school. We have put massive funding into extra literacy and numeracy programs and we have introduced testing to ensure that we know what the situation is in our schools when it is early enough to be able to correct the problem. For the first time since the Fraser government, we did a proper research project on what literacy and numeracy standards were in our schools. We have introduced the Green Corps, where 3,500 young people are going to get the environmental skills they need so that when they have finished their Green Corps program they are able to get jobs in an environmental area. We have made massive reforms to higher education in order to be able to increase the number of publicly funded places. I can proudly say we have done so, and there were 17,000 more places in Australia universities in 1997, including through privately funded places, which is an initiative of this government which is designed to allow more people the opportunities that university education gives them to massively increase the opportunities for jobs in the future. I realise that the House will be adjourning at 5.30 p.m. Can I say in conclusion that this government has done everything in its power in an integrated, fully matched program, from the university level to training programs to job skills, in schools, in literacy and numeracy, to ensure that we undo the untold damage that was done by Labor's profligate spending and lack of genuine care for young people through their Working Nation program during their unhappy period in office. | Australia | 1,998 |
Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented. Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith. Main Committee's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 19 to 20), omit the item, substitute:4 Subsection 18(6)Repeal the subsection, substitute:(6) A document purporting to be a written statement made by a person in response to a request under section 39N is to be taken to be such a statement unless the contrary is proved.(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (lines 13 to 18), omit paragraph (9)(a), substitute:(a) adding up: (i) the part of the amount paid as described in subsection (6) that the court thinks is attributable to employer contributions to a superannuation scheme in respect of the offender; and (ii) the part of the amount paid as described in subsection (6) that the court thinks is attributable to interest accrued on those contributions before the payment; and(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 19), omit "that part", substitute "the sum of those parts".(4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 26 (lines 19 to 20), omit the item, substitute:4 Subsection 45A(6)Repeal the subsection, substitute:(6) A document purporting to be a written statement made by a person in response to a request under section 50N is to be taken
to be such a statement unless the contrary is proved.(5) Schedule 2, item 9, page 28 (lines 13 to 18), omit paragraph (9)(a), substitute:(a) adding up: (i) the part of the amount paid as described in subsection (6) that the court thinks is attributable to employer contributions to a superannuation scheme in respect of the offender; and (ii) the part of the amount paid as described in subsection (6) that the court thinks is attributable to interest accrued on those contributions before the payment; and(6) Schedule 2, item 9, page 28 (line 19), omit "that part", substitute "the sum of those parts". | Australia | 1,998 |
I move: That the bill be now read a second time. This bill completes the legislation package commenced with the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997. That bill gives legislative effect to the new social security payment, youth allowance. Youth allowance will be an integrated income support payment for young people that will be available regardless of whether a person is in education, in training, unemployed or sick. The primary purpose of this new bill is to provide the consequential amendments for youth allowance. The bill also incorporates some significant related measures flowing from the establishment of youth allowance. These related measures largely comprise the transfer of program elements for older students from the employment, education, training and youth affairs portfolio to the social security portfolio. This will be done primarily by setting up a new payment, Austudy payment, in the Social Security Act 1991 for students aged 25 and over. There will also be new provisions in that Act for the pensioner education supplement, the student financial supplement scheme and for fares allowance. Austudy payment will replace the Austudy living allowance currently available under the Student Assistance Act 1973. The Austudy payment will be available to students who commence a course of study when they are aged 25 or over or who were not receiving youth allowance when they turned 25.Generally speaking, the new Austudy payment will incorporate many of the rules
that currently apply for the Austudy living allowance. However, in many instances the rules will be simplified and modified to bring the new payment into line with other payment types in the Social Security Act. Examples of some of the changes that result from the restructuring include the application of the same income test that applies to social security beneficiaries under the Social Security Act; all Austudy payment recipients being subject to an activity test which can only be satisfied by undertaking either full-time or concessional study; and certain entitlements that are not currently available to Austudy living allowance recipients—for example, bereavement payments and advances of payment—but which apply to social security recipients being extended to Austudy payment recipients. Students who receive social security or veterans' affairs income support payments because they are disabled, sole parents or carers cannot get Austudy living allowance. They can, however, receive the Austudy pensioner education supplement while studying. The supplement can be paid for study at either the secondary or tertiary level, and for study at either a full-time or a concessional load. The pensioner education supplement under the Social Security Act will replace the same named entitlement available under the existing scheme. It will incorporate most of the rules that currently apply to the supplement under the Austudy living allowance. However, as with the new Austudy payment, the rules will be simplified and modified to the bring the new payment into line with other payment types in the Social Security Act. The student financial supplement scheme currently in operation under the Student and Youth Assistance Act is essentially a loan scheme that gives tertiary students the option of borrowing money to help cover their living expenses while studying. Since the student population using the scheme is essentially moving to the social security portfolio, the scheme will also move except in relation to Abstudy customers, who will continue to be dealt with under the Student Assistance Act. Many of the details relating to the new student financial supplement scheme operating in the social security portfolio will be provided in a disallowable instrument rather than in the Social Security Act itself. However, the new scheme, while differing from the current scheme structurally and in drafting style, will mirror the current scheme. The rights and obligations of students will be preserved in the transition between portfolios, although a student's new financial supplement entitlement may change because his or her rate of youth allowance or Austudy payment may potentially change under the new payment structure. The Austudy regulations currently provide for the payment of fares allowance for tertiary students. The allowance is essentially a payment to assist with the travel costs incurred by certain tertiary students in undertaking their study. It is a payment made, not on a regular basis, but on occasion, up to a certain number of times during an academic year. Again, since the majority of the student population for whom the allowance is intended is essentially moving to the social security portfolio, the allowance will also move such that the Social Security Act will enable the making of a disallowable instrument in relation to fares allowance. Although the structural details will be different to accommodate the new payment arrangements, the entitlement will be basically the same as it has been under the Austudy regulations. A fares allowance will continue to be paid under current arrangements for Abstudy customers. This bill provides the consequential amendments for the transfer of these elements as well as for youth allowance itself. It provides for the transitional arrangements for the package, the flow-through to youth allowance of certain 1997 budget and other measures contained in the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Parenting and Other Measures) Act 1997 and the Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Other Measures) Bill 1997 and some minor refinements to youth allowance. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. | Australia | 1,998 |
I move: That the bill be now read a second time. The commencement of the Aged Care Act 1997 in October of last year saw the implementation of legislation that guarantees an aged care system that maintains the comfort and dignity of older Australians in a way that is viable and sustainable. However, as with any reform of major significance, it has become apparent that there are some issues that require finetuning and others that relate to the administration of the act that need addressing. In November 1997, the government announced a number of measures that will promote our vision of a secure future for older Australians. These measures maintain the integrity of the government's structural reforms while addressing issues raised by some older Australians. I am very pleased to introduce today the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 which will see the implementation of these measures that I have previously announced. The government remains committed to bringing real improvement to nursing homes, too many of which are simply in no fit state to be a safe, comfortable and dignified home for older Australians. The accommodation bond arrangements for residential care were designed to provide a source of much needed capital to be used for the upgrading of nursing home buildings. However, it became apparent that some older Australians believed that they may not be able to afford the bond or would have to sell their homes to pay it. The government has listened and responded by introducing an accommodation charge, instead of a bond, for nursing home level residents. The accommodation charge maintains the principle of people making a contri
bution to improving the quality of their accommodation where they can afford to do so. It also takes account of the special circumstances of nursing home level residents and gives certainty in what can be a difficult time. The accommodation charge has been capped as a daily rate of up to $12 per day, or $6 per day for assisted residents, for a maximum of five years. Concessional residents, or those who qualify under hardship provisions, will not be required to pay any charge. The bill extends many of the consumer protections that currently apply in relation to accommodation bonds and requires aged care providers to meet a range of responsibilities in relation to the charge. These new arrangements will provide flexibility and choice for residents in how they pay the charge. For example, residents may choose to rent their family home and to use this income to pay the charge. This bill amends the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlement Act to exclude this rental income and the value of the property from the pension income and assets test. The government also remains committed to those who devote themselves to caring for older people in their own homes. The bill alters from five to two years the period during which a resident's home must have been occupied by a carer in order for the resident to qualify as a concessional or assisted resident. This change will make it easier for residents to qualify and attract a higher level of government subsidy. It will also mean that carers will be able to remain in the family home—further recognising the vital role that carers play in the community. The bill also changes the current requirement for concessional or assisted resident status to be rolled over where a person moves between services. Concessional or assisted resident status will now be assessed whenever a resident enters a new service. This will enable a change in status with any change in circumstances. This is a more equitable arrangement that matches the level of government support with a resident's ability to contribute towards the costs of their care. The bill also addresses anomalies in the new aged care legislation in relation to the
revocation of approved provider status and the imposition of sanctions for breaches of responsibilities under the previous system. Provisions will be introduced that will enable the Commonwealth to take strong and decisive action against these providers, for example, where they have been convicted of serious crimes such as the abuse of residents or fraud. The government is committed to ensuring that only those providers who meet their responsibilities will be able to provide care to the most frail and vulnerable in our society. It has also come to the attention of the government that the responsibilities of providers in relation to the kinds of fees residents and intending residents can be asked to pay need to be clarified. The bill contains provisions that make it very clear that residents cannot be asked to pay additional fees, for example, to be placed on a service's waiting list, beyond those already allowed by the Aged Care Act. Lastly, the bill makes provision for a number of minor changes to facilitate better administration of the Aged Care Act. These include clarifying a number of definitions and providing for an `entry form' to enable people to be advised about their level of income tested fees as soon as possible. It also clarifies rules about pre-entry leave and entering accommodation payment agreements where a person has a mental impairment and the keeping of essential aged care service records in English. An amendment is also made to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Budget and Simplification Measures) Act to correct a minor cross-referencing error. These changes are the result of the government listening to and responding quickly to address these issues. We have acted in a timely and sensitive way to keep the benefits of the aged care reforms flowing to consumers now and into the future. The accommodation charge will ensure the continued improvement of nursing home buildings and improved services for consumers. The other amendments clarify and improve some of the current arrangements set out in the Aged Care Act—the legislation that has seen the most significant reform to the provision of aged
care in Australia over the last decade. It is legislation that encourages innovation, flexibility and creativity in service delivery and planning. I have pleasure in commending the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum. | Australia | 1,998 |
Let me first say that it is disgraceful that the adjournment debate has been taken up with government business. It is a sad state. The Liberal Party gives away the position of Speaker from its party room and then will not even stand up and let the backbench have the time to have a say in this parliament. You have come a long way down. There might be a few of you over that side, but you do not have much backbone in the party room. Yesterday the member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) commented on the amount from the Natural Heritage Trust that was being spent in Lyons. If you take that sum in isolation from the rest of the grants, it might look reasonably fair. However, it is small compensation for the amount of money that has been ripped out of Lyons. It is very inadequate compensation. It is a sop to a few Liberal mates down there to stop them whingeing at the government. That is exactly why they have put the money there. Funds and jobs for Lyons have been decimated. There have been closures all over the place. In the north of the state, we have had the removal of the Family Court; we have had the closure of the tax office; and the latest news is that the Defence Force recruitments office is to be disbanded and shipped over to Victoria. It is a despicable act by the government which was done by stealth. The recruitment personnel have played an enormous role in going around to the schools
all over the state, and on Flinders and King islands, to talk to them and explain how kids can gear up their studies for entry into the forces and what assistance they can get to do that. These children rarely go into the city. So the opportunity for a rewarding career in the defence forces is going to be lost to them. Now there will be a visit once a year from some stranger out of Victoria who does not know the families, will not be able to keep an eye on the kids and is not interested to help them apply when the opportunity comes. All these things have an enormous impact on Lyons and on the families that live within its boundaries. People are not taken in by these measly amounts which are being offered to a few people—like to the state government for various projects, to the local councils to do some of the work that really should be done by the state government anyway and for some fencing for local farmers to fence in natural bush for a growth area. There are some good projects among those that were put forward. Some were funded but a lot were not funded. Only last weekend I visited a group at Carrick, a small historical town at the end of my electorate. They had applied for money on numerous occasions and were disappointed that they had never been funded. Undeterred, that group has done a terrific job. The local people, along with the local Lions Club and other community organisations, have done a terrific job cleaning out a creek and a river. They have put back the local swimming hole and have a place to put a boat on the river. They have done that without funding. With a little bit of funding, they could have done a hell of a lot more. I am grateful for what has been offered but I would like to see more and I want to see some job development programs. I want to see some assistance to small towns to keep them viable. I want to see opportunities for kids. I want to see a stop to this closing of banks, hospitals and post offices. We want to retain our police presence in these areas. We want to keep the country and make it live again. Just throwing this token money around will not achieve those basic things. We have to have jobs going back into the country. We need some special projects and
some training to create those jobs. We can make them relevant and provide an opportunity for the community. That is what we need. If these funds mean that the country areas will be taken seriously by the government and stop the wholesale slaughter of facilities out of the electorate of Lyons and the state of Tasmania, I welcome the money, but it is not enough. We have to get on to economic development and look at supporting small towns with small communities by keeping services in those areas. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
Congratulations, Mr Speaker, on your elevation. I also want to congratulate the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) for two very significant events that occurred during the past week. They both deal with the small business sector, a sector that I have had very close involvement with in recent months, particularly in the new areas of my electorate of Petrie which I picked up from the electorates of Dickson and Brisbane in the recent Queensland redistribution. Small business people along Stafford Road, Old Northern Road and McDowall were very interested in the federal government's reforms. In fact, I was very surprised that many businesses which were previously in the electorate of the member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis) knew very little about the small business sector and what this government was doing. Every small business needs to be aware of this government's initiative, with its `new deal, fair deal' package for small business. The benefits are absolutely immense and every small business deserves to know about and to be informed of these measures. The first announcement that I would like to deal with was the announcement that the Australian banking industry has acknowledged the small business sector by widening the coverage of the ombudsman scheme. This was an initiative which was a direct result of the fair trading inquiry undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, of which I was an active participant and the only Queensland government member on that committee. This decision by the banking
industry comes after this government, through the great efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, took that initiative and worked with the banking industry to achieve reforms for the small business sector. I also wish to acknowledge a report that came out in February by the Micro Consultative Task Force. They were very appreciative of the work that had been done in the fair trading report and particularly in the ombudsman scheme. Previously the Australian Banking Industry Ombudsman did not extend to small business. It has been the government's belief that the scheme should apply to all small businesses. The fact that the banking industry will also develop a charter for small business is a very positive step and one that needs to be commended. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate those appointed to the Franchising Council. I know that the chairman, the Hon. Michael Mackellar, will undertake his task with great dignity and respect. The representatives cover a wide range of industries from a cross-section of very well-known companies—companies such as Pizza Haven, Oz Design and McDonald's. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate one of Australia's leading franchising attorneys and a representative from Queensland, Mr Joseph Panettiere, on his appointment. The Franchising Council has been designated with a workload that will cover a number of areas, including: undertaking a review of the franchising code of practice; obtaining agreement on the franchising code; monitoring the operation of the code; and developing a strategic plan for the franchising policy council covering issues of the relationship with the ACCC, the code of review and industry liaison. Furthermore, areas in the code which are to be reviewed include things such as: financial projections; prohibiting conduct that has occurred in the past such as churning, stock dumping and rent loading; the use of dispute resolution processes; and setting absolute minimum standards for disclosure documents for franchisors and franchisees. The franchising industry in Australia is following trends around the world. It is just growing from strength to strength. The practicalities therefore are to ensure that this particular growth is not stifled by things such as risk and instability. The government needs to be congratulated on its efforts in this much needed area of reform. In relation to retail tenancy reform, franchising reform, unfair conduct and trade practices and small business education, this government is not just looking at the problems which exist but is acting on them and delivering great and positive results. I wish to wholeheartedly endorse the work that has been done on fair trading and the work that is continuing on a day by day basis. I know that the Franchising Policy Council will undertake that reform and will continue with the great work that has already been an initiative for the benefit not only of the franchising industry but for the whole of the small business community in Australia. I wish to particularly commend the work that they will be doing, and also to continue working with the minister on these much needed reforms. | Australia | 1,998 |
I would like to pay tribute to a fine Australian and a committed trade unionist, Maurie Rudd, who passed away in early February. At the time of his death, Maurie was the Newcastle and northern regions branch secretary of the AWU and state president of the AWU. Maurie knew he had cancer for over three years, yet he led his union in very difficult negotiations with the federal government and BHP over the closure of the steelworks in Newcastle. As a former official of FIME I knew Maurie well. I found him to be a good, decent Australian who at all times put the interests of his members before his own welfare. Maurie had two great loves outside his immediate family. They were his union in its various forms—the Federated Ironworkers, which he joined in 1970, with the amalgamation of the FIA and the ASE into FIME and, finally, the AWU—and the Australian Labor Party, in which he worked quietly to improve the living standards of people in Newcastle. As a committee member of the Newcastle Beyond 2000 group, he worked hard to attract new investment into Newcastle to create more employment, particularly for young people, for whom he had a special interest. Maurie Rudd completed his education at Bellingen High School. He worked in various callings. He started work at BHP Newcastle as a steelworker in 1970 and subsequently became BHP's sub-branch secretary of the Federated Ironworkers Association, in 1976. He became a full-time national organiser of the FIA in 1984 and then assistant secretary, in 1987. He was elected as the Newcastle branch secretary of the FIA in 1989 and he was the FIA state secretary from 1990 until the AWU amalgamation. Maurie Rudd was a board member of Radio 2HD and past board member of the Australian Centre for Best Practice (Hunter) Labor Cooperative. His interest was in football, golf, greyhounds, horseracing, reading and politics. In June 1997, he was co-chairman of the Prime Minister's task force investigating the social and economic impact that the closure of BHP would have on Newcastle and the wider community. Australia will be the poorer for the passing of Maurie Rudd. | Australia | 1,998 |
Today is good news day. The federal government has strengthened the economy in the past two years: we have the lowest inflation rate amongst major economies; in two years time we will have halved the debt to GDP ratio inherited from Labor; we will have taken a Labor $10.5 billion deficit into a budgeted surplus by next year; we have presided over interest rate reductions of four percentage points on home loans; capital expenditure figures in the past two months demonstrate the strong confidence of the business community in the future prospects of the Australian economy; and building approvals in Australia are now 20 per cent higher than they were a year ago. In the Bendigo Advertiser of Wednesday, 25 February, an article by Linda Barrow appeared with the heading `Bendigo builds a future. Private sector jobs on the rise.' This is part of `Strategy 2000', a feature series in the Bendigo Advertiser. The article states: Bendigo is having a quiet employment revolution. While Bendigo people bemoan the loss of 1600 public sector jobs in the last few years, most do not realise an extra 3198 jobs have been created in that time . . . Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show Bendigo's total employment growth outstripped the rest of Victoria in the five-year time frame from 1991 to 1996.Our jobs grew by a strong 5.2 per cent, while the rest of Victoria recorded just 4.1 per cent job growth. Bendigo's shining light on the employment front was the work of its private sector. I spoke in this chamber yesterday about the increase in private sector jobs in the telecommunications industry. Obviously that is reflected in these figures. | Australia | 1,998 |
This week I received a copy of the 80 or so submissions put to the House of Representatives inquiry into financial institutions and public administration which covers alternative means of providing banking and like services in regional Australia. I found the submissions quite interesting. Why did I find them quite interesting and why did I receive a copy? I carried out my own survey of small business and individuals in country areas in my electorate and put a submission together to put their views to the inquiry. The point I want to make is that there was only one other politician, the member for Barker, Mr Ian McLachlan, who had bothered to put something in, which shows that there must be concerns in his area as well. Yet we keep being told in this place how well the government is representing the people in regional areas. I know that those areas have just as many problems as my constituents, yet their parliamentary representatives have not seen fit to make submissions to this very important inquiry. They stand up in the parliament and argue constantly that they represent regional Australia, but they could not put their services and their minds together to put a submission to this very important inquiry. Bank closures was one of the first issues I had to address in 1993 when the Commonwealth Bank closed its doors in Queenstown—ironic, really, as that was the parliamentary seat of King O'Malley, who represented Darwin on the west coast of Tasmania, and he was instrumental in establishing the Commonwealth Bank or the `people's bank' as he always called it. Bank closures have been one of the real problems in regional areas. My submission talks of those problems: how isolated communities have difficulties getting bank finance, the increased cost of having to use facilities outside their towns, the inadequacies of electronic banking in country areas, and the loss of privacy and the personal touch in banking—to mention a few of the views. Regional members should be more aware of what is going on in their communities and see the difficulties that many country people are having. Banking has been an area of grave disquiet. So many services are deserting the country, especially in Tasmania. We have not only lost banks, but a whole host of other services have gone. Most of all, we have lost jobs. That is a disaster, especially for our young people. So I will be seeking to ensure that regional Tasmania, at least, is represented at this inquiry. Even if other members representing regional Australia who claim, in this government, to represent regional Australia do not, I will be in there fighting for regional Australia.(Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I rise today in this place to give special recognition and congratulations to some very hard working young people in my electorate of Forde. Young people get a bad rap sometimes these days, and the media tends to focus on the bad news stories. But this government has tremendous confidence, faith and belief in the ability and dedication of our younger generation. This is reflected in the many positive programs we have put together to benefit young people and to help them play a constructive and important role in our local communities. There is the tremendously successful work for the dole program. I am pleased to say there are two pilot programs operating in Forde, both of which have gained an enormous amount of community support. One is run by the Beaudesert based organisation Boystown and one by our local community organisation Phantast, overseen by the energetic and dedicated Calvin and June Pybus. I visited the teams of local people who are working on these programs and I am very impressed with the enthusiasm they display and the contribution they are making. I congratulate them and encourage them, and I really hope that the skills they are learning will boost their self-esteem and help them find the full-time jobs that they are seeking. But it is another hardworking group of young people today that I particularly want to thank and that is the Tamborine Mountain Green Corp team, headed by supervisor Dale Treadwell and with fantastic support from Will Buck of the National Parks and Wildlife Service. This team have had remarkable results with their rehabilitation, planting and revegetation programs which are helping preserve the unique Tamborine Mountain environment. They have also done a tremendous job with special projects such as the recently completed rainforest boardwalk at Mount Tamborine Primary School, designed to provide environmental education and enjoyment for local children. That is what is really special about Green Corp. It is community based and tackles practical tasks while also providing special training and employment for our young people. That particular Green Corps team finishes on 13 March, and I would like to thank each one of them personally for their efforts and achievements on behalf of the Tamborine Mountain community and many other local residents and, indeed, visitors from all around Australia who
like to escape to the mountain environment for a break. Congratulations to the 10 very special young people, Cori White, Christy Morris, Scott McPherson, Sarah Hudson, Michelle Howard, Brett Hollingdale, Melanie Harrisson, Joshua Grove, Dylan Bryant and Horght Bennett. Again, thanks for their supervisor and the backbone of the team, Dale Treadwell and Will Buck. You have all done our local community very proud and your achievements will quite literally grow and reap benefits for the local environment for years and even generations to come. Best wishes to all and also to the young people who are participating in the Green Corps team in nearby Canungra who have just started on their revegetation program, as well as all of those who are participating in future projects on the mountain. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I rise to give advance notice to the national parliament of Australia of my intention during the next few weeks to put forward two specific private member's bills. The first bill, still to be named, will be provisionally known as the Sydney Airport Commission Bill. I will be calling for the establishment of an independent and permanent Sydney Airport Commission incorporating a panel of three commissioners with a judicial or a magisterial background to be appointed with adequate support staff and to be required to report to the federal parliament on a quarterly basis or as required by the parliament. The role of the commission is to consider flight paths and any proposed changes so as to ensure that this extremely contentious and divisive issue is removed from the political process once and for all, to allow for a clearly transparent process to be established so that flight paths are determined fairly, equitably and without fear or favour. Also that an appeal mechanism be incorporated to ensure that any objections received are given a fair hearing. One million Sydneysiders have had enough of political interference by successive governments and the intrusion in their lives by changing flight paths to suit hidden agendas. Additionally, an overarching planning body is urgently required to oversee all air and surface transport planning in the Sydney region. The three tiers of government need to be working closely together to avoid such messes as we are now fighting. I will be incorporating that provision as a recommendation. The other bill which will be in bill form, or in a similar format, will seek to establish a magisterial inquiry into the unsatisfactory process that has led to the formulation of the long-term operating plans for Sydney airport. The long-term operating plan has had a very detrimental effect on large numbers of Sydney residents because of aircraft noise and air pollution and substantially increases the genuine fear held by those under the flight paths of the risk of a plane crash. Conversely, some other areas have received overly generous reductions resulting in understandable accusations of political bias. There is an undeniably widely-held view that the LTOP is unsustainable because of the alleged political manipulation of the process. The one million aircraft noise and air pollution affected residents of Sydney are entitled to know the facts, such as: is there is any truth to the allegations that the LTOP was put together by Airservices Australia under the direct direction of the former minister for transport, John Sharp? Is it true that the published draft document was seen by the task force only a matter of hours before publication? The work of the environment subcommittee ceased at that time. No mention was made of the defined impact criteria. Why did the community consultation process not provide essential measures of the environmental impact of the proposals and their alternatives together with proposed selection criteria? Is the Sydney Airport Community Forum
an instrument of government and a front for government agencies? Why did the chairman of our Sydney Airport Community Forum, the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) become the promotional agent for the LTOP? Who gave instructions to Airservices Australia to circumvent the task force? Who gave instructions to ASA to refuse to define the long-term operating term as requested by CAAG? (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I certainly have tried to represent them well. Thank you, Mr Acting Whip. The traditional families in my electorate and the battling single parent families have all had to cope over a long period of time with changes in society—changing economic circumstances, changes to family law, changing value systems and the changing influence of the media—and an increase in pressures that have made it more and more difficult for families to cope. I thought after two years in government that it was an appropriate time to look back and see what sort of progress this government has made in helping our families. I am quite encouraged by the significant progress that has occurred, firstly in tackling some of the symptoms of family breakdown and secondly in tackling some of the causes of family breakdown. Regarding the symptoms of family breakdown, the government has helped families with its tough on drugs strategy where $90 million will be spent over three years. I am especially pleased to see an emphasis on education and treatment for those people who have suffered. There have also been changes to child support arrangements to help accommodate non-custodial parents. Also, $19 million has been provided for youth counselling projects and prevention of youth suicide projects to help those young people who are often the victims of family breakdown. There has been a great deal of progress, and there will be more to come, on tackling the causes of family breakdown. There is the need to reform our economic system to provide hope and security for our battling families. The government has made progress in reducing unemployment from 8.6 per cent to 8.1 per cent. There is the growth in apprenticeships and traineeships particularly to provide hope for our young people. There is the $1 billion family tax package designed to help those families on low and middle incomes, and particularly those families where there is only one income. The family tax package provides greater choice for families where one parent wants to stay at home to look after the children. There is the great benefit stemming from low interest rates that is saving families with mortgages hundreds of dollars a month and thereby reducing their debt. There is the domestic violence strategy where $25 million has been provided to protect women. There have been greater censorship controls on violence. The government has introduced firearms control, and there has been a return to an emphasis on responsibilities and obligations rather than a preoccupation with rights. There is plenty more to do. Obviously, this government intends to pursue that and there are many more challenges ahead for society as a whole. We need to change our priorities and our
value systems. We need to continue to provide security and hope by stabilising the economy so our young people have a sense of direction and hope. We need to continue to counter those philosophies of life which undermine the strength of the individual and thereby undermine the value of the family. | Australia | 1,998 |
Mr Deputy Speaker, I indicate at the outset that the opposition will be supporting the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Amendment Bill 1997 . By way of background, where Commonwealth employees, including parliamentarians, are convicted of an offence and the Attorney-General is of the opinion that the offence is a corruption offence, then the Attorney-General may instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions to make an application to the court for the Commonwealth component of the employee's superannuation to be forfeited. That is the nub of what we are discussing now. A loophole has recently come to light whereby, before being convicted, a Commonwealth employee may avoid this process by rolling over their superannuation benefit into a superannuation fund beyond the Commonwealth's jurisdiction. This bill proposes to close this loophole and provide additional powers to freeze assets after a person has been charged with a corruption offence by amending the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989 and the Australian Federal Police Act 1979 to allow the following: tracing and recovery of Commonwealth funded superannuation benefits that have been paid to rollover institutions; the official trustee of a superannuation fund to take custody and control of restrained property and sell it in accordance with a superannuation order; temporary suspension of an employee's employer financed superannuation benefits; facilitation of the provision of information to the Commonwealth by superannuation entities, and simplification of the way information is provided to a court that certifies the amount of a person's superannuation benefits. As I said earlier, this legislation may have application to the recovery of Commonwealth funded superannuation benefits of current and former parliamentarians who have been, or are about to be, charged with a corruption offence, provided the superannuation benefit has not yet been rolled over or a conviction made. We, on the opposition side, think that this is an important measure and that is why it is being supported by the opposition. It is appropriate that it apply also to parliamentarians because we do not want double standards in this regard. There needs to be equality right across the sector. We are part of the public sector. We are elected, but we are part of the sector that services the community. There is not much more to say. We welcome this initiative. It may well have application in relation to other matters that are current at this point in time. I do not prejudge that. I do not prejudge anything in relation to this, but this is a weapon that the Attorney-General should have. It is appropriate that the Attorney-General is armed with this weapon because it is about closing loopholes. We should not be stopping just at closing this loophole. There are other loopholes. The opposition is willing to support the government on a lot of these measures
where the case can be made out. In this instance, it has. In other instances, we believe that the case has not been made out. We are not into suspicion. We are not into innuendo. We are not into the presumption of guilt before the case has been made out according to proper standards. You must have proper standards because we inherited the British system of justice, the golden thread that says there is a presumption of innocence and the Crown bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt. If there is a reasonable doubt, an acquittal then follows. This is not the French system where we seek the truth. This is an adversarial system. This provision is necessary because it does not presume one thing or another. But if a conviction subsequently flows, then the circumstances of the matter can be taken into account by the Attorney-General. It might not necessarily be used in some instances. The Attorney-General should have that discretion because different instances have different facts. That is why you have a discretion. We do not believe in things just automatically flowing in this area. There is that cautionary note. It is not expected by the opposition that the DPP or the Attorney-General, in terms of their discretions, will also exercise discretion one way all the time. That is why you have a discretion for whatever office. Whether the DPP decide to prosecute or not, that is their discretion alone and it can be judged on the circumstances, the same as for the Attorney-General in terms of his ability to form a view. We take the view—and I put it on record here—it is not upon opinion polls and the community standard which Attorney-General or the DPP should act if he invokes this section. It is not a standard that should be a higher standard for a parliamentarian or a public official as against another public servant. It has got to be the same standard, because I remember a Director of Public Prosecutions in an earlier time evoking a higher standard for public officials. I remember my outrage at the time when I saw a double standard. The argument back then was, `Well, we will prosecute to clear the air.' That is not the discretion; that should not be a factor in the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General exercising any discretion. And, particularly, it should not be the factor if this section is invoked that, because it is a public official, this section will necessarily be invoked or because it is a popular public official that this section will not necessarily be invoked. It has got to be a proper discretion that is exercised—a proper use of this power. That is why it should not be mandatory or automatically flowing. I do not believe in mandatory sentences. I do not believe in one strike and you are in automatically or three strikes and you are in automatically. If we do, then give the judiciary a miss and let us put in computers. Then all you need to do is pump in the charge, do not worry about the circumstances of the case and feed it all out. I do not want it to be thought that because we support this particular provision—and we do unreservedly—that we say it should be exercised in every instance; each case must be taken on its merits. What worries me, and not only in relation to this, is that there is a double standard out there at the moment. There is a double standard that flows from the fourth arm, the fourth estate, the gallery. I believe strongly in the presumption of innocence. I believe strongly in those who accuse bearing the burden and putting the evidence up or shutting up. That is why I am happy and the opposition is happy to support this particular proposal. It is necessary because of the
loophole but it is something that the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions should, and I trust will, exercise on the merits of each case. I raised the earlier incident only because I disagreed very strongly with what the then Director of Public Prosecutions had to say over a decade ago when basically the policy was that, if you were a prominent public official, you would be prosecuted to clear the air. That is not a proper standard and it has been subsequently abandoned, as I understand it, as it should have been. | Australia | 1,998 |
In many respects the member for Banks (Mr Melham) has stolen a bit of my thunder in relation to what he just observed and I find myself in agreement with him. In particular, I am reminded of a statement made recently about people on crusades. Those sorts of people are usually so fired up with their own moral superiority that they do not think about what they are doing; they also tend to be careless with the truth. That was said by Ron Brunton, the anthropologist. I do think it has some application to what the honourable member has just said. Having gone through the aftermath of the Fitzgerald inquiry as counsel for a number of people who were charged after that particular inquiry, I saw there was an evangelical zeal that was exercised on the part of the Office of Special Prosecutor, the office set up to prosecute those who were charged with official corruption and other offences in the aftermath of that particular inquiry. That inquiry did have some greatly beneficial effects in Queensland, in so far as it exposed official corruption at a very high level. Indeed, the police commissioner at the time, Sir Terence Lewis, ultimately was charged with a number of counts of official corruption and, after a lengthy trial, was convicted. I might say that there has been some recent press in relation to his being in prison, and suggestions have been made by Professor Paul Wilson that it is about time Lewis was released, because he is a political prisoner. I reject that notion, in the case of that particular prisoner. He received a fair trial. In fact, the trial judge in that case was His Honour Judge Tony Healy, who, in my opinion, is one of the fairest judges on the criminal court district court bench. Indeed, many thought with some horror during the course of that trial—when he ruled out some evidence in relation to Sir Terence Lewis's diaries as corroboration for the offences—that a conviction might well not be made because of that ruling, so fair was His Honour during the course of that trial. However, Sir Terence was convicted. He was represented by extremely experienced counsel in John Jerrard QC, and I do not think anyone could have got a fairer trial in those circumstances. There are many judges who would not have ruled that evidence out. As a result of all of that, he was convicted. The process was very much cleansed by that conviction. But there were other people involved in those particular matters surrounding the police commissioner. More removed from him were those who were caught up in what I might call a spiritual oil spill: the evangelistic zeal of the Office of Special Prosector spread out like a spiritual oil spill and captured in its tentacles a number of people that, in my opinion, ought not to have been so captured. That is why I do endorse some of the remarks of the honourable member for Banks about that, because it is true that the prosecutorial authorities, be they the Director of Public Prosecutions or counsel briefed privately to prosecute, must be extremely careful of the political pressure that can be brought to bear when notorious inquiries end up with individuals being charged with offences. The temptation to run the prosecution as some sort of quest to get up a score sheet is a very dangerous thing, and something that I think has no place in our law. I do believe, with all due respect to the Office of Special Prosecutor in Queensland, that some at least of the trials in the aftermath of the Fitzgerald inquiry were proceeded with with a zeal which was unbecoming of normal criminal prosecutions. I was involved in a case called the Queen v. David Rodney Smith. It was a trial that went for nine weeks in the District Court. It had a lengthy prehistory, including what I think was a two-week committal hearing, which was stopped to take to the Court of Appeal a point that arose during the course of the committal. So it had a lengthy prehistory when it finally came to trial and the case was presented to the District Court. Really, I got the impression from time to time, from the way the case was prosecuted, that it was something akin to an accused being charged with mass murder. In actual fact, the accused was charged with official corruption. The official corruption arose out of section 121 of the criminal code, which says, inter alia:. . . Any person who—(i) . . . being a person employed in the Public Service in any capacity not judicial for the prosecution . . . of offenders, corruptly . . . agrees . . . to receive . . . any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, on account of anything already done or omitted to be done, or to be afterwards done or omitted to be done, by him, with a view to . . . the protection of any . . . intending offender from detection or punishment . . . is guilty of a crimeThe accused in that case was charged with receiving a benefit, namely sexual services, from prostitutes. If I may digress for a moment, one of the amusing parts of the particular case that was argued in the legal argument preceding the trial was whether or not sexual services, for the purposes of section 121 of the Criminal Code, could be a benefit. Well do I recall the concluding remarks of Mr Griffin QC in legal argument when he suggested to Judge Margaret McMurdo that Sir Samuel Griffith, when he drafted section 121, did not have sex in mind. That did not produce a favourable response from the bench, I might say. The particular submission was ruled out. However, what I want to say about that case—it is important because it has a relationship to what we are quite rightly doing here; but what we must be careful with when we look at exercising a discretion to both apply these particular provisions that will come into law as well as prosecute—is that we should be absolutely certain that what we are doing is an offence that is capable of being corruption. In that particular case, what Mr Smith was ultimately convicted of, I have no doubt, was sex, because the issue was not corruption. The system in Queensland was that people who engaged in those practices—the brothels and so forth in Queensland—were charged on a rotational basis by arrangement. There was never any real suggestion that what was done by Mr Smith in that particular case, or what was alleged to be done—and ultimately he was convicted of it—had anything to do with corruption, but, rather, it was an arrangement which was to facilitate the system in Queensland. It had nothing to do with payment of money. It had nothing to do with anything other than a system which was extremely difficult to police. Ultimately, Mr Smith appealed his conviction and the conviction was overturned. The decision is reported in 1993: 1QR 541. It was overturned by a majority of Justices McPherson and Pincus, with Thomas dissenting. Again, the clear thrust of the judgment of the majority decision was that, really, this was not corruption. The jury were invited to be put into a position of deciding that perhaps what was being charged, namely official corruption, was
blurred by the activity—the particular salacious activity—that was alleged to have been involved. I can well recall the spiritual zeal with which that case was prosecuted by the Office of Special Prosecutor. I was very glad when the Office of Special Prosecutor ceased operations because in my view, as well as in the view of many police officers associated with it—not necessarily those who had been charged—and in the view of members of the legal profession, that office did get completely out of hand in relation to the cases that they were involved in. That, in my view, was one particular case. Well do I remember some of the records of interview conducted by barristers who were employed by the Office of Special Prosecutor. Some of these records of interview were ruled out and excluded by trial judges because the zeal with which they pursued these cases overtook them. Unfairness and inadmissibility of evidence thereby followed. With that background, I do support the legislation, and I refer to the particular sections involved that deal with this legislation. Corruption, for the purposes of the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Amendment Bill 1997 , is mirrored in section 2 of the principal act. It involves abuse of office, corruption itself committed for the purposes of perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice, or being involved in corruption. The powers that follow from those particular elements of involvement in corruption are the power to freeze the superannuation entitlements of the official charged with serious corruption, tracing the amounts rolled over and recovering the amounts under orders of the court. Queensland, as I mentioned before, was very much involved in this particular area following the Fitzgerald inquiry, and there is legislation in Queensland in the form of the Crimes (Confiscation) Act 1989 and the Public Officers' Superannuation Benefits Recovery Act 1988. It is to be borne in mind, too, that there were some difficulties, going back to the Terry Lewis case, experienced in relation to his particular superannuation. Some lengthy and expensive court proceedings were had before a successful outcome was obtained in relation to a very large superannuation benefit that he had become entitled to by virtue of his office. When one looks at the power under the bill, the minister may only make a direction that a person's employer funded contributions be suspended if the person has been charged with or convicted of an offence. Where the person is convicted of a corruption offence and sentenced in respect of that offence, the sentence must be for a term greater than 12 months, and this follows earlier legislation that came into this House last year, from memory. Overall, these measures are good measures because the common law, which has been around for hundreds of years, was inadequate to deal with some of these particular matters and there was a necessity to introduce legislation to cover many of the bases that were not covered by the common law. So I think that the forerunners of this legislation and this legislation itself have been good responses to some of the difficulties that have been encountered in ensuring that recovery of moneys from corrupt officials has been able to be speedily put in train. All in all, these measures are very appropriate and come at a time when society expects there to be condign measures for officials who are minded to pervert the course of justice or otherwise engage in official corruption. But, at the same time, society also expects that those charged with a discretion both to prosecute and to commence proceedings should do so with care, unabridged or uninfluenced by political or public pressure considerations. The justice system itself will thereby be perverted if those considerations are allowed too much to influence the course of the discretion, a very important discretion which is not always
recognised. The discretion of a crown prosecutor to both prosecute or enter an nolle prosequi is one that should be unhindered and unfettered. In conclusion, in recent years, particularly with the advent of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Queensland, I have seen a diminution in the exercise of that discretion by the prosecuting officer, the crown law officer who was in court. So often in the course of cases I saw where a discretion was patently open to be exercised, particularly in relation to the entering of a nolle prosequi where a judge had given an indication that officer would seek an adjournment to go and consult the Director of Public Prosecutions. I do not think that that was a good thing. In some particular cases it may well have been necessary, but in most cases it is not a good thing, for only the crown law officer doing the case understands the need to exercise such a discretion and ought to be able to exercise an unfettered discretion. Overall, Mr Deputy Speaker, with those remarks I welcome this measure and fully support it. | Australia | 1,998 |
Along with colleagues on both sides of the House, I am very pleased to have the opportunity of speaking in this debate on the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Amendment Bill 1997. Like other honourable members, I support the bill and, indeed, the further amendments which will be moved by the government. At the outset, I would like to point out that those further amendments are technical amendments which do not in any way, shape or form undermine the impact of the bill. Quite to the contrary, they actually correct a drafting fault and better implement the intention behind the legislation. It is really important that in Australia the public is able to have confidence that corrupt public officials, whether federal public servants, judges, members of parliament, or others on the public payroll, are not able to breach the law and yet still receive publicly funded superannuation benefits. This bill before the chamber proposes to amend the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act 1989 and the Australian Federal Police Act to close loopholes which have allowed corrupt public officials to access their publicly funded superannuation benefits. Following the passage of this legislation, corrupt officials will no longer be able to avoid confiscation of employer funded benefits by rolling their superannuation into a non-Commonwealth fund. The government will be able to freeze the superannuation benefits of any official charged with a serious corruption offence, trace amounts that have been rolled over and recover them under a court order. This is appropriate legislation. The community will see it as being very fair and reasonable, and I am pleased to see that the opposition is supporting the government. It is eminently regrettable that, however, the opposition does not see fit to support the government on the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 which would see small businesses employing 15 or fewer people being exempted from the unfair dismissals law. Coming from the Northern Territory, Mr Deputy Speaker Dondas, you would also be eminently regretful that the opposition has failed to support the Wik legislation which would enshrine a very fair proposal, the Prime Minister's 10-point plan, as part of the law of this nation. | Australia | 1,998 |
We have a solution. It is with the Wik legislation, and I challenge you to support it. Returning to the bill: this bill allows the tracing of amounts that have been paid to superannuation providers, that is, amounts that have been rolled over, and enables them to be recovered under a superannuation order made by a court. It provides a mechanism by which the employer funded superannuation benefits of persons charged with, or convicted of offences involving corruption, may be temporarily suspended. It enables the official trustee to take custody and control of restrained property and to sell it, or otherwise dispose of it, in satisfaction of a superannuation order. It facilitates the provision of information to the Commonwealth by superannuation entities concerning Commonwealth employees, and it simplifies the way in which information is provided to a court that certifies the amount of a person's superannuation benefits in superannuation order proceedings. The policy underlying this change is that employer funded superannuation benefits should not be paid from the public purse to people who are corrupt. That is unexceptional, but it is interesting that until now the law has not provided for this very sensible change. It ought to be noted also that the forfeiture of benefits is not a penalty for the commission of an offence. Instead, corruption of office is a fundamental failure to fulfil a vital condition of public employment, and the commission of a corruption offence is a fundamental breach of trust in the employer-employee relationship and justifies disentitlement to taxpayer funded superannuation benefits. To sum up: this legislation provides the capacity to freeze the superannuation entitlement of any public employee charged or about to be charged with a corruption offence. It means that the government will be able to ensure that taxpayers' money is protected from those who have betrayed the public trust. I commend the opposition for backing this legislation. It is a matter of great regret that it has not supported other legislation currently before the parliament. At this point I had planned to commend the bill to the House but I have just been given a note that says, `Keep going,' and keep going I shall. | Australia | 1,998 |
in reply—I am very pleased to participate in a timely way in the closing of the debate on this bill. I thank members for their support of the bill. I thank in particular the member for Banks (Mr Melham), the member for Dickson (Mr Smith) and the member for Fisher (Mr Slipper). The member for Banks emphasised that the amendments are fair, they apply across the board to the public sector and they are necessary to close a loophole by which the objectives of the principal act may be defeated. The government endorses those sentiments. The members for Banks and Dickson expressed concern about the possible improper exercise of discretions under the act, particularly by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Under section 16 of the Crimes (Superannuation Benefits) Act, the only relevant discretion resides in the Attorney-General. Once the Attorney-General is satisfied that a person has been convicted of a corruption offence, and the sentence exceeds 12 months imprisonment, he or she may authorise the DPP to seek a superannuation order from the court. The DPP has no discretion; he must then seek the order. The discretion exercised by the Attorney-General is reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The bill improves the operation of orders and makes provision for a more efficient recovery of benefits that have been paid by Commonwealth schemes. Mr Deputy Speaker, while I am on my feet, it has been foreshadowed that the government seeks to move amendments. I will move them in due course, but I would like to briefly speak to them now. Amendment 1 is a minor and technical amendment to the bill and restores a technical evidentiary provision to the act that was inadvertently repealed by the bill. That technical provision, subsection 18(6), is being restored and modified as a consequence of the amendments being made to the evidentiary provisions of the act by the bill. The modified provision has the same function and purpose as the provision the bill repeals. Further explanation of the amendment is contained in the supplementary explanatory memorandum, which I will present in due course. Parallel amendments are made to the Australian Federal Police Act by a fourth amendment. Amendments 2 and 3 are technical amendments that make it clear that subparagraphs 19(9)(a)(i) and 19(9)(a)(ii) are to be read cumulatively and conjunctively. In other words, the
sum of employer contributions paid by the Commonwealth or Commonwealth authority and the interest that is accrued on those contributions is indexed. Parallel amendments to the AFP Act are made by amendments 5 and 6. | Australia | 1,998 |
Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. Amendments (by Mr Williams)—by leave—agreed to:(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 19 to 20), omit the item, substitute:4 Subsection 18(6)Repeal the subsection, substitute:(6) A document purporting to be a written statement made by a person in response to a request under section 39N is to be taken to be such a statement unless the contrary is proved.(2) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (lines 13 to 18), omit paragraph (9)(a), substitute:(a) adding up: (i) the part of the amount paid as described in subsection (6) that the court thinks is attributable to employer contributions to a superannuation scheme in respect of the offender; and (ii) the part of the amount paid as described in subsection (6) that the court thinks is attributable to interest accrued on those contributions before the payment; and(3) Schedule 1, item 9, page 5 (line 19), omit "that part", substitute "the sum of those parts".(4) Schedule 2, item 4, page 26 (lines 19 to 20), omit the item, substitute:4 Subsection 45A(6)Repeal the subsection, substitute:
(6) A document purporting to be a written statement made by a person in response to a request under section 50N is to be taken to be such a statement unless the contrary is proved.(5) Schedule 2, item 9, page 28 (lines 13 to 18), omit paragraph (9)(a), substitute:(a) adding up: (i) the part of the amount paid as described in subsection (6) that the court thinks is attributable to employer contributions to a superannuation scheme in respect of the offender; and (ii) the part of the amount paid as described in subsection (6) that the court thinks is attributable to interest accrued on those contributions before the payment; and(6) Schedule 2, item 9, page 28 (line 19), omit "that part", substitute "the sum of those parts". | Australia | 1,998 |
My voice being what it is, I might be brief this morning. I would like to say at the outset that the opposition is supporting this particular piece of legislation, but I would like to, in particular, make a few remarks about the changes to the impact that this legislation will have on paper protection for manufacturers of pharmaceutical products in Australia. In Australia, thanks to the factor F program which was introduced by the former Labor government's industry minister, Senator John Button, we have had a very good record on the performance of the Australian pharmaceutical industry. We have had a substantial increase in investment, a substantial increase in exports of Australian made pharmaceutical products and an increase in commitment to research and development in Australia as a result of the factor F program. Basically, the factor F program was about ensuring that Australia paid higher prices to those pharmaceutical manufacturers who did the right thing by Australian investment, Australian exports of Australian made pharmaceuticals and research and development carried out in Australia. Currently, we pay about 50 to 75 per cent of the OECD price for pharmaceutical products because Australia has the pharmaceutical benefits scheme which gives the government an enormous negotiating power in determining the prices that the pharmaceutical benefits scheme pays for drugs. The factor F program has been recognised by all of those in the industry as one that encouraged a great deal of worthwhile outcomes for the Australian manufacturing industry. The current government commissioned an Industry Commission inquiry into this industry some time ago and a number of recommendations were considered by the government. About 12 months ago, the government made a decision to continue with some assistance to this
industry. The amount of assistance provided to the industry was of the order of $300 million over five years. That was $300 million which was not quite as generous as the factor F program, but it was $300 million that we think in part compensates the industry for the fact that they received less than market prices because of the government's strong negotiating power through the pharmaceutical benefit scheme. One of the terms of the agreement between the industry and the government about that replacement industry plan for the pharmaceutical industry was an improvement in patent protection for pharmaceutical manufacturers. That improvement in the patent protection is, I understand, included in this legislation and it is one that we, on the opposition side of the parliament, support. We think it is important that pharmaceutical manufacturers receive a fair return for the research work they do in developing new pharmaceutical products. Naturally, laws in Australia and in other countries ensure that a lot of work has to be carried out on ensuring that new pharmaceutical products do not have any unintended consequences. Often those medical research projects not only take a lengthy time but also cost a great deal of money. It is for that reason, and for the reason that we want to encourage an investment in a domestic Australian pharmaceutical industry, that we believe that providing improved patent protection and some form of an industry plan for the pharmaceutical industry is something that is worth while and worth encouraging. One of our concerns is that, having reached this agreement with the industry about 12 months ago, in a bolt from the blue in last year's budget the government decided to make $500 million worth of savings in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme by introducing its disgraceful therapeutic group premiums policy. | Australia | 1,998 |
The member for Robertson interjects that it is $500 million of savings from the pockets of multinationals. I am sure that will be a surprise to some of his constituents who are being asked to pay more for their essential medications because of this very policy. I admit that some of the money has come from the profitability of pharmaceutical companies, but I know that after reflection and study the member for Robertson will be forced to agree with me that a portion of those savings does come from the pockets of his constituents who are forced to pay more for medication for high blood pressure and stomach ulcers. The real concern I have is that, while the government in this legislation reached agreement with the industry to extend patent protection to encourage the industry, the government in that decision in last year's budget has done the reverse of what it set out to do in the industry plan. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) delivered an industry policy statement late last year and he rightly said that the industries we wanted to attract to Australia were those that were prepared to invest to create jobs, those that were prepared to develop exports, and those that were prepared to invest in research and development. What industry other than pharmaceuticals better fits that description? It provides investment, exports, and research and development, and yet this is the industry that the government has targeted for the biggest cut in last year's budget. At the end of the day it is a matter of working out what is the fair price that the pharmaceutical manufacturers should receive. The industry currently receives about 50 to 70 per cent of the OECD average price. It receives even less as a percentage of the price that is paid in the United States for pharmaceutical products where market forces reign. Those on
this side of the House certainly want to ensure that we have as many Australians as possible employed in Australia's pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. We also want to ensure that patients who use these drugs are not forced to use drugs that are not appropriate. In my visits to organisations on the central coast of New South Wales, there is a great deal of concern amongst people who are required to use drugs for high blood pressure and for stomach ulcers about the impact that this decision has had on— | Australia | 1,998 |
The honourable member says it is simply untrue. I can simply quote the example of Norvasc, one that has been raised in the parliament on several occasions with the Prime Minister and with the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge). I would now like to challenge the member for Robertson to get up today and explain to us whether he considers Norvasc to be medically equivalent to the cheapest drugs, the drugs that his constituents have been told that they should switch to, unless they are prepared to pay $4.46 extra on top of what they have paid in the past. Norvasc has been accepted by the government's own medical experts as being quite different from the cheapest alternatives in that therapeutic group. Under the cost justification regime the makers of Norvasc had to prove that it would generate sufficient savings, that is, fewer visits to hospitals, to justify the higher price premium that was negotiated between the manufacturers of Norvasc and the government. You have got to ask how people such as the member for Robertson and the minister for health can claim that these drugs are absolutely the same if the government's experts have reached a very different conclusion. Just getting back to patent protection, we certainly argue that the Australian pharmaceutical industry is one that should be encouraged. It has done a very good job in creating jobs. We have had a lot of investment in the Australian pharmaceutical manufacturing industry in the last decade, in no small measure due to the great efforts of former Senator John Button during the time that he was industry minister. It is an area where there is going to be a massive increase in demand, especially in the Asian region despite their current economic troubles. This is an area where, with a commitment to some research and development in Australia and by making sure we have a stable regime that encourages new investment from the industry, we can generate many new jobs in years to come. This legislation gives a better patent protection regime for those companies that are prepared to invest and operate in Australia. It is something that we on this side of the House support. | Australia | 1,998 |
When the word `piracy' is used, many of us in the first instance think of the word's original meaning of robbery at sea. Fortunately, there is only a remote chance that this form of violence will ever touch any of our lives today. However, like many words, new meaning has been added to the word `piracy' over time. Through changing circumstances, today the word `piracy' is commonly used to refer to unauthorised appropriation or use of intellectual property such as copyrighted or patented work, ideas, et cetera. In contrast, this kind of piracy, whether we are aware of it or not, is quite common and subtly impacts upon our daily lives. It impacts on the economy. It impacts on society's wellbeing. According to Harry Hillman Chartrand in his article, `Intellectual Property in the Global Village', published on the Internet, economies in recent times have become more and more knowledge based. He says: Wealth creation in the global village is shifting from a resource to a knowledge-base. The economy is increasingly dependent on brain power and our ability to create, to sell, to explain and to solve problems. In future, wealth will come more and more out of our heads; less and less will come out of the ground. And the goods and services of our brainpower will be marketed in an increasingly competitive global village. But knowledge is abstract. It is not like a car or a house which can be locked and secured against theft. If someone gains knowledge, it does not reduce that being available to others. Essentially, there are two ways of turning knowledge into one's own private property. One way is through keeping it to one's self and the other is through intellectual property law, including copyright, patent, registered industrial design and trademark legislation and conventions. Although such property rights can be created, there is a difficulty in protecting them, particularly in the global marketplace. The act of piracy of intellectual property is commonly found in the computer software industry. Misappropriation of software, which is referred to by some as superhighway robbery, is relatively easy when offenders can remain anonymous and avoid detection. Piracy of intellectual property—even that which is protected through legal patents, copyrights, et cetera—denies the authors the benefits of the fruits of their creativity. It is a disincentive to development of even more sophisticated software. Arguably, the effect of pirating intellectual property in the pharmaceutical industry is of much greater concern. The pharmaceutical industry is a research intensive industry and this feature makes its products very costly to bring to the marketplace in the first instance. Not only do pharmaceutical firms carry out very expensive, highly specialised research to develop new products but we, as consumers, expect products to then be subject to rigorous and extensive testing to ensure their suitability for our use or consumption. In an article titled `A pharmaceutical quest for cures to trade ailments', Harvey Bale of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America points out that the pharmaceutical industry is highly innovative and spends more than 20 per cent of its income from sales on research and development. Pharmaceutical companies therefore seek expansion into the international marketplace to provide additional revenues that can be devoted to additional research and development into the new therapeutic cures for old and new diseases. It is notable that more than a dozen new infectious diseases have been encountered and identified since 1975. The pharmaceutical industry discovers over 90 per cent of the new pharmaceutical and vaccine therapies and critical research into such areas such as AIDS, heart disease and cancer are improving the length and quality of life and saving on overall social costs of health care. For these reasons, it is in this global society's interests to ensure that the pharmaceutical industry remains strongly viable. Because pharmaceutical firms conducting business in the international competitive environment have very high costs associated with bringing their product to the marketplace, they have a vital interest in expanding global trade to ensure profitability and worthwhile returns on their vast capital and R&D outlays. But intellectual property protection cannot be global per se. Rather, it is achieved through a network of national laws. In other words, protection in a global context from unauthorised misappropriation will only be achieved if the laws are put in place in all countries where products are marketed. International protection for intellectual property comes from obtaining protection from within each country through its own laws. If there is a weak link in the global network of protective legislation because one country has less strict laws, it is likely that acts of piracy will occur at that point in the network. This has been common in the Middle East, particularly where lack of laws and extremely liberal trade policies have resulted in widespread distribution of counterfeited and pirated material throughout the region. However, in recent years, there have been significant changes in laws and attitudes of the governments in the Middle East to intellectual property. There has been a growing recognition that the lack of intellectual property protection is economically detrimental and hampers technological development. This is because many high-tech countries such as the US and the European countries have simply stayed away from the region, depriving countries with unsatisfactory intellectual property law protection of the latest technological advances in the medical, telecommunications and computer services. According to a review of the Australian pharmaceutical industry in 1996 by the Industry Commission, if Australia proved to be a weak link in the international network of protection it could give rise to the potential for companies to withhold new drugs from Australian markets because commercial confidentiality could not be assured. A duty therefore falls upon us to make effective laws in this country that complement and harmonise with worldwide international property laws. This would provide a desirable level of protection for pharmaceutical intellectual property and ensure that Australians can benefit from the latest pharmaceutical advances. It is in this context that the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 , which I strongly commend, is brought before the House. The main purpose of the proposed legislation is to establish a system where confidential information about new chemical entities has five years of data protection similar to that which is provided by several overseas countries. When manufacturers wish to register new products in Australia, they are required to submit test data which is protected against disclosure unless release is in the public interest. This does not prevent any company registering a generic product consisting of the same active components. Under the proposed legislation, such companies will, in future, be required to seek the agreement of the originator company to assess its original data. To demonstrate bioequivalence, they must develop and lodge with the Therapeutic Goods Administration their own full data package instead of an abbreviated package which is required at present. Chartrand says that formal protection of intellectual property rights such as copyrights, patents, registered industrial designs and trademarks, is justified as a protection of, and an incentive to, creativity but, in return, society expects creators to make their work available and that a market will be created in which such work can be bought and sold. While society wishes to encourage creativity, it does not want to foster harmful market power. Accordingly, the state
builds in limitations to the rights granted to the creator. Such limitations embrace both time and space and rights are granted for a fixed period of time. In Australia, patents were for many years granted for a period of 16 years, but this was extended to 20 to align with international standards. The latest Uruguay Round of GATT produced trade related intellectual property agreements, commonly known as TRIPs, which established many sets of codes dealing with different trade aspects, intellectual property rights, minimum standards and strong enforcement measures. The TRIPs propose a 20-year patent term effective from the filing date. As we have observed, however, because of the stringent testing requirements there is a lengthy period before a pharmaceutical product can be marketed. This means that, despite the high costs involved, patented pharmaceutical goods effectively have a shorter period of protection than any other patented goods. The proposed legislation before this House removes that anomaly by granting a five-year data protection period for therapeutic goods. Whilst granting an extended data protection period is the primary aim of the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 before the House, it has other important elements. These include a provision for the Secretary to the Department of Health and Family Services to cancel the registration in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods of any therapeutic goods, as a result of using protected information; a provision enabling the secretary to seek additional information about manufacturing processes used to produce goods that are not listed in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods; provisions that stop people who have been convicted of an offence against the act, or against a state or territory law relating to therapeutic goods, from continuing to manufacture goods through another corporation or entity; a provision for regulations to be made relating to the issue of import and export permits in relation to therapeutic goods; and, finally, a provision for the consequential amendments to the Customs Act. It is essential, therefore, that there be enforcement provisions supporting the thrust of the proposed legislation. The power to cancel registration of offenders is therefore appropriate. It is necessary that powers of investigation into manufacturing processes be granted to the Secretary of the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods to seek additional information about manufacturing processes, so that the proper manufacturing standards can be met. It is prudent to close such loopholes as the one that may occur and which would allow convicted offenders against legislation to simply manufacture under the name of another legal entity. Finally, it is good practice to make consequential amendments affecting customs regulations. I believe that enacting the legislation currently before the House is consistent with our charge under the constitution to provide good government for the citizens of Australia. Furthermore, enactment would discharge our international obligations under the trade related international property agreement to which Australia is a signatory. It harmonises our legislation with other countries' legislation relating to the protection and marketing of therapeutic goods, thus providing not only the best commercial environment for producers but also the best social outcomes for consumers. In view of all these circumstances, I commend this legislation to the House. | Australia | 1,998 |
The Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 is the second one introduced by the Howard government into the House in recent times that seeks to effect changes to the patent protection of pharmaceutical products. Probably the first of these bills, the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997, is the more important
of the two. Its principal aim is to improve Australia's place in the highly competitive global pharmaceutical industry by giving greater patent protection to local pharmaceutical manufacturers. Whereas that first bill is concerned with providing an effective patent life for complete pharmaceutical substances, this second bill aims to improve the protection regime for new active components—or NACs, as they are called—that are connected with an application to register therapeutic products with the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Put simply, although the issue of safeguarding of intellectual property is anything but simple, this bill seeks to give patent protection to innovators, where the final product of their research and development is quite different from the original forecast and is, therefore, not subject to protection under the original patent. This is not a common occurrence. However, given that we are competing in an aggressive international marketplace, it is critical that we implement comparable legislation to that which is in effect elsewhere. The coalition has espoused that the five-year data protection regime proposed in this bill is consistent with that of New Zealand and the United States of America. While it is true that New Zealand adheres to this time frame, the United States of America Food and Drug Administration protects test data for up to seven years. The United Kingdom goes further than this in recognising that data relating to new chemical entities remains the exclusive property of the registering individual or organisation for a period of 10 years from the date of first marketing. While the measures in this bill are supportable, it is submitted that the government should look, as a matter of priority, at extending patent protection for test data for a minimum of seven years. In presenting its 1996 report into the domestic pharmaceutical industry, the Industry Commission acknowledged that: Australia is bound to abide by its international obligations in the area of intellectual property protection. This was a reference to the 1994 agreement on trade related aspects of intellectual property rights, commonly known as TRIPs, to which Australia is a party. Section 7 of that agreement reads, in part: Members, when requiring, as a condition of approving the marketing of pharmaceutical products which utilise new chemical entities, the submission of undisclosed test or other data, the origination of which involves a considerable effort, shall protect against disclosure, except where necessary to protect the public, or unless steps are taken to ensure that the data are protected against unfair commercial use. To this end, the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 proposes to introduce a number of changes to better align Australian patent legislation with the laws of other member nations to the TRIPs agreement. A five-year data protection regime is to be introduced to prevent the Secretary to the Department of Health and Family Services from accessing information about a new active component in order to process other applications for the registration of goods with a like active component. Representatives from the Tri-Med Specialties Group, a medical research organisation which borders on my electorate—I believe it might even be known to the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron), who is at the table—believe this to be a significant and fair inclusion. As they rightly point out, the cost and time being borne by those who are the first to produce a new active component far outweigh those costs incurred by firms which opt to piggyback off these innovations. This position is also advanced by the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, APMA, the peak body representing the interests of domestic manufacturers of prescription medicines. In a fax dated 23 January 1998, Dr Janice Hirshorn, Director of Policy and Strategy Development at APMA, noted that— | Australia | 1,998 |
Before the suspension, I was about to quote Dr Hirshorn. In the fax she said: The APMA considers that protection of test data is critical both from a public or health policy standpoint. She went on to note: Equity demands that protection be provided for data, which can cost the original submitter several millions of dollars to produce (because) disclosing these data to the public or allowing its use by another applicant, unfairly denies the compiler of the data the value of its efforts and grants an economic advantage to later applicants for marketing approval, enabling them to avoid the cost of developing test data for their own products. One of the most significant traits of the pharmaceutical industry is its dependence on products that are technologically intensive and knowledge driven, hence the bigger than average expenditure in pharmaceutical research and development as a proportion of total sales in comparison to other industries. Given that pioneering pharmaceutical companies rely so heavily on R&D to keep ahead of the pack, it is perfectly reasonable for them to anticipate that any submissions made for inclusion in the Australian Therapeutic Goods Register, the ATGR, will be adequately protected under Australian patent law. Some have suggested that the deficiencies in the existing legislation have disadvantaged innovative companies and dissuaded them from pursuing other costly research and development projects in Australia. If this is the case, it is to be hoped that the amendments in this bill will help to reverse that trend. The 1998 OECD Economic Surveys publication notes that Australia has not fared all that well in recent global comparisons of innovativeness. Page 116 of that report reads: The rate of (Australian) enterprise creation has not stood out as high by international comparison, relatively few companies have grown beyond medium size, and the industrial sector is still dominated by large resourced based—many foreign owned—companies. But it is not just the industrial sector that is commanded by multinationals. The United States of America, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France are the largest producers of pharmaceutical products. Together, they accounted for greater than 80 per cent of the total pharmaceutical production in 1991, the most recent figures available to me. The USA alone was responsible for 40 per cent of total global production in that same year. In comparison, Australia is considered to be small fry, both in terms of the size of our domestic market and in our share of production of pharmaceuticals. Given the relative obscurity of the Australian pharmaceutical market, it is paramount that indigenous companies make the most of their opportunities to increase their market share, through both a commitment to research and development and a focus on the development of external markets. The government, too, has an obligation to create the right conditions to cement the commitment of foreign drug companies to continue with research and development and production in Australia. It is ridiculous to argue that the major benefactors of this legislation
will be Australian pharmaceutical companies. The fact is that the big winners will be those countries which are net exporters of pharmaceuticals—that is, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Germany, France and possibly Japan. In strengthening the patent protection for new active components in the manner prescribed in this bill, we are effectively fortifying the grip that these multinationals have on the pharmaceutical trade. To illustrate the control that foreign companies have over the Australian market, I refer members to table 2.7 of the Industry Commission report into the pharmaceutical industry. The contents of this table reveal that the two largest Australian pharmaceutical companies, in terms of pharmaceutical benefits scheme, PBS, sales, accounted for less than five per cent of total PBS sales in the year 1994-95 worth $111 million. On the other hand, the biggest 10 multinational enterprises, called MNEs, generated sales in excess of $1,255 million in Australia in the same period. Just as telling is the fact that greater than 90 per cent of all new drugs developed post-1960 have originated from Japan, Europe and the USA. To not proceed with the amendments proposed in this legislation could mean that the MNEs look abroad to countries that are prepared to reward innovation through investment in research and development. As the Industry Commission noted: The pharmaceutical industry is knowledge intensive. This means that R&D plays a key role in allowing companies to develop and refine products. At the same time, companies rely on patents to enable them to capture the returns from their investment in R&D.In recent years, the costs associated with pharmaceutical research and development have escalated but the discovery of new chemical entities, the subject of this bill, has become less frequent. Patent protection for MNEs is therefore becoming increasingly significant. Should those MNEs opt to take their Australian operations elsewhere, the impact on the Australian economy of the loss of those multinationals cannot be overstated. The Industry Commission has concluded that the majority of multinationals conduct a large proportion, around 40 per cent, of their research and development through linkages with other pharmaceutical companies and other research organisations. In other words, domestic pharmaceutical organisations benefit directly from these formal links with the MNEs, as well as indirectly through the spill-over effects of foreign research and development. The Industry Commission estimates that the pharmaceutical industry makes a substantial contribution to the broader Australian economy, with value adding of approximately $745 million in the year 1993-94 alone. We simply cannot afford to become blase in our attitude towards the protection of intellectual property. Item 4 of schedule 1 will see the secretary's powers further enhanced, so that he or she may revoke the registration of a therapeutic good, if it is found that the registration includes the use of protected information. That is both fair and reasonable. As the explanatory memorandum indicates, this bill aims also to extend the secretary's authority to pursue information about a manufacturer of therapeutic goods beyond the current restrictions. Under the proposed legislation, detailed information relating to the site of manufacturer and the modus operandi of a producer of a therapeutic good will be able to be investigated by the secretary. Many expect this provision to discourage a home-brew type of operation and therefore it enjoys the broad support of industry. The government has forecast that the measures in this bill—unlike the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997 , with its financial impact—will have no significant effect on revenue. This is principally because it is not common for pharmaceutical R&D to produce a new chemical entity that is so different from the initial forecast that it is not covered by the original patent. Therefore, this bill should be viewed as an extension of the coalition's attempts to upgrade protection for intellectual property rights. Given the commitment of both sides of the House, as I understand it, to fostering a culture that encourages research and development in Australia, I expect that all members will support this legislation. I remind my parliamentary colleagues that pharmaceutical manufacturers rely heavily on patents to maximise their returns on the fruits of their research and development. R&D and the protection of intellectual property are inextricably linked, and it should be the priority of government to foster the input of knowledge back into technology. The pharmaceutical industry operates in a heavily regulated environment and it is important for government to strike a balance between the interests of manufacturers of new drugs and of those producing generic versions of drugs. In its 1996 report, the Industry Commission quotes the former Department of Industry, Science and Technology as concluding: From the consumer's point of view, a balance that encourages both research and production of new drugs and the availability of lower priced generic drugs is important. This balance is also important in the context of retaining competitive pressures which keep PBS prices low. Any reasonable measure which seeks to protect innovators from copycat manufacturers, and therefore provides an incentive to invest in the development of new pharmaceutical products, should be embraced. In March last year I noted, in my contribution to a grievance debate on research and development of intellectual property, that the key to success for technology firms is the speedy getting and marketing of information. I noted then that the protection of intellectual property is equally important. In the absence of adequate patents legislation, companies do not have the time to reap the rewards of their research and development, and we would surely see Australian businesses look elsewhere in those circumstances to fund their research and development. I support the bill. | Australia | 1,998 |
My first address to the Main Committee was in relation to insignia protection for the selected sponsors for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games. In some ways I see a similarity between that protection bill and the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 , and that is the protection of investments. I argued in the debate on the Sydney 2000 games protection bill that the major sponsors deserved to be protected against other products or companies using the various Olympic symbols for some sort of market advantage. The major sponsors will hold a special position, but then they have invested the money with SOCOG for that exclusive right and the bill protected that investment. Likewise, this bill introduces new protection for certain manufacturers and their products. New products which are developed to treat specific medical
problems are often the result of years of research and development, requiring many thousands of hours of work, testing and trialling, not to mention money. I said in relation to the Sydney 2000 games protection bill that it was only fair that we do the best we can to ensure that commercial sponsors are given a fair go for the investment which they have made. Likewise, it is only fair that we live up to our national and international responsibilities and protect the research data and the results of manufacturers who develop new therapeutic chemical entities. I note the comments of the Industry Commission in the 1996 review of the Australian pharmaceutical industry where they said: Protection of commercially sensitive data supplied in confidence is understandably a concern to international businesses. . . . Of particular concern is the potential for companies to withhold new drugs from the Australian market if commercial confidentiality cannot be assured. This bill introduces a new data protection regime which will provide a five-year period of data and research security for companies which develop new chemical entities or active therapeutic components. Further, as the honourable member for Adelaide and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services (Ms Worth) stated in introducing this bill: During this time, any other company seeking to register a generic copy of a registered product containing . . . the active component will be required to seek the agreement of the originator company before the TGA can directly or indirectly access or reference the originator company's data relating to the same component. Put simply, what we are talking about here is giving a fair go to the people who put the time, the effort, the energy and the money into developing a new product or therapeutic agent. I think we all recognise that the pharmaceutical industry is extremely competitive, and rightly so. That intense competition helps in many instances to keep the cost of generic products down to a level accessible by ordinary members of the public. But the effort that goes into producing new drugs to treat specific problems or conditions needs to be recognised and protected. I note that the new data regime this bill will introduce is very similar to those which have already been introduced in many other countries. Some of the other measures in the bill relate to general consumer protection measures, for example, enabling more detailed information to be obtained about the manufacturing process and premises of an applicant seeking to list the therapeutic goods in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, as the explanatory memorandum of this bill makes clear. The guidelines concerning the introduction of new pharmaceutical product into the open market are naturally very strict. One bit of advice I think Townsville parents give their children when they are growing up is that when it comes to your health you do not take chances. We likewise should not take chances with the products we allow onto the market shelves. The regulatory steps are there to protect consumers, and the overwhelming number of therapeutic products which do reach the market do so for good reasons. These are sensible measures. Therefore I support them and have no hesitation in supporting this bill. | Australia | 1,998 |
I rise today also to speak to the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 . At first glance, the amendments to this legislation would appear to be only very minor, but they are very significant in so far as they indicate this government's commitment to the delivery of quality public health and safety measures throughout the community and they improve legal protection to the Australian pharmaceutical industry. The amendments will also assist the work of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, a division of the Department of Health and Family Services, through its watchdog role for and the support of this particular industry. The bill, as outlined here today, aims at tightening some of the therapeutic goods legislation in three key aspect areas. Firstly, it is important to mention that it will widen the protection for research, developers and manufacturers in the degree of chemical entities patents. Secondly, it examines the registration process of listable products by the TGA and it allows for additional information to be sought on the manufacturer. Finally, the legislation tightens the loophole which allows persons who have been convicted for offences under the act to start a new company. In itself, this is a very important safeguard for public health and safety. The confidence in Australia's regulatory system is strong and the quality of our products which are exported is very highly regarded by many overseas countries. The TGA has a very important role and has the community's confidence to ensure the safety and the quality of these products. The TGA also has a strong consultative basis and recognises the importance of obtaining practical support necessary through regular consultation with industry and consumer groups. Over the years, the therapeutic goods industry has become much better regulated with the measures that it has put in place to ensure that products are developed and dispensed, with the utmost care taken to ensure that this quality and safety continues. Manufacturers must adhere to a rigid set of guidelines in order to ensure that certain provisions and regulations are upheld. These guidelines cover everything—advertising, labelling and production. Over recent years, particularly since the enactment of the Therapeutic Goods Act of 1989, there has been a far more regulated and competitive approach taken towards this particular industry. This government is very conscious, in the present environment, of rapid development in the area of intellectual property and of the necessity to provide up-to-date protection of intellectual property and to ensure that there are no breaches where this research data is provided. In the Industry Commission's 1996 report—and the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) also highlighted this—on the pharmaceutical industry, the introduction to the chapter on intellectual property issues states: Adequate protection of intellectual property is of fundamental importance for research based industries. Given the high risks and the cost involved, pharmaceutical companies rely on a period of patent protection for successful products to secure an adequate return on their total investment in research and development. In fact, this federal government has been at the leading edge of providing secure vehicles where manufacturers can protect this very important intellectual property. I note that the launch early in 1997 of the innovation patent system provides rights to small and low cost innovations. This particular function allows for a quicker approval process; industrial property rights for upwards of eight years; and much lower threshold protection. The Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism (Mr Moore) really needs to be congratulated for his work during this period. The cost of patenting intellectual property has, for a long time, been a very contentious issue. This government has provided leadership on this issue by attempting to alleviate the burden in the area of research and development within small and medium sized industries. The federal government as part of its response to the Industry Commission's report into the pharmaceutical industry provided amendments to the Patents Act 1990 which extended the
term to up to five years for the 20-year standard pharmaceutical patent which brought Australia in line with international best practice. The pharmaceutical industry is a very important sector in the economy and, in the 1996-97 financial year, it accounted for exports of just under $1 billion. This amount is actually even higher than for exports generated by the wine industry. The government is supporting this sector of the economy and acknowledges the jobs which are generated from research, development and distribution through to dispensing. The extension of time for patents also shows the commitment to the industry and acknowledges the very valuable work that is done in this particular area of research and development. This commitment to the protection of patents and support for research and development continues with this bill under debate here today. As mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Family Services (Ms Worth) when introducing the bill, the amending legislation ensures that Australia fulfils its obligations under the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. One of the key amendments arises in item 4, which gives the Secretary to the Department of Health and Family Services jurisdiction in the event that protected information has been used in the application to register therapeutic goods. The legislation also introduces a new data protection scheme which will in effect allow five years for data protection. It provides greater protection to originators and insists that applicants ensure that they provide a full data package when they are registering. This amendment also strengthens the power of the secretary in relation to these matters. It allows for assurance in the intellectual property which already exists and it acts as a deterrent for the future in legislation rather than in principle. As mentioned previously, this decision also places Australia in line with similar protection which now exists in the United States, Europe and New Zealand. It is important that Australia continues to be at the forefront of intellectual property laws, a particular area of law which has seen far more focus in recent years. As with any sector which relies on research and development, the provision of necessary protection measures is important to encourage further improvement within the industry. Australia must cement its position as a world best practice nation. Whether it be in the therapeutic industry or other industry sectors, we have to ensure that we have the protection in place to encourage further research on our shores. Item 5 of the amending legislation provides much further scope, specifically allowing further examination of a manufacturer who plans to produce listable goods. The legislation also tightens the situation where previously there has been available immediate re-application following the registration of a conviction under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. This particular amendment provides further conditions regulating the granting and the cancelling of licences and extends the powers which presently exist for those implementing the act, particularly with respect to the Secretary to the Department of Health and Family Services. Items 6 and 7 also strengthen the position of the secretary to clean up the industry, particularly in relation to those manufacturers who are convicted of offences under the act. The health and safety of consumers must always be a primary concern of any government. Therefore, it is extremely important that we tighten and close the loophole which previously existed and ensure that those people who had a conviction cannot immediately apply to
establish another company and obtain a similar manufacturing licence. By adding safeguards to those situations where a licence can be refused or cancelled, these amendments can only serve to increase the level of safety to the community. The TGA oversees a pharmaceutical industry which encourages companies to invest, research and continue to develop products and therefore provides jobs for this country. I have no hesitation today in commending this particular bill to this committee. | Australia | 1,998 |
in reply—I would like to thank those members who have taken part in this debate and for the contributions that they have made. They have highlighted the importance of data protection. I was pleased to hear the member for Petrie (Ms Gambaro) giving such emphasis to the role of the TGA in promoting health and safety to consumers. People often like to say they wished that politicians and governments would get out of their way. However, when it comes to protecting health and safety, when they pick something off the shelf in a chemist shop or a health food shop, they do expect that to be safe and to be in their best interests. So I am pleased to hear an emphasis on that. There has been some debate about the importance of intellectual property rights. The importance to Australia of the pharmaceutical industry has been mentioned and, of course, it is a very important industry to us. The member for Dobell (Mr Lee), possibly under some provocation, did stray from this legislation to talk about the therapeutic group premiums. I think that it is worth mentioning again how important research and development is in this area. In the last budget the government sought to have the pharmaceutical manufacturers put forward competitive prices so that there would not be too much dipping into the Medicare fund inadvertently. There was $300 million set aside for research and development. I talked to manufacturers in the industry. They see this as a very important thing because not all manufacturers are involved in research and development. It is important that those that are get the financial advantage for that rather than just perhaps the profit line from medicines that are consumed by the general public. Over the next four years, $500 million will be saved from that scheme, as at the same time $300 million is going in for those involved in research and development. About $440 million of that $500 million will come from savings from that competitive pricing. That really is a good thing. From the manufacturers' point of view, they know that with an ageing population it is an ever increasing market. While those savings are going on, they know that it is going to grow at least $200 million a year, with a large proportion of that going to manufacturers. The government seeks to have a good working relationship with manufacturers, but at the same time very much get the best possible deal for the public. The member for Dobell did raise again the issue of one particular drug, Norvasc, and whether that had any particular value over others. I was at great pains in the consultation process to ensure that the drugs were grouped appropriately. All those medical experts in the end came up with the assessment that they had been certainly very appropriately grouped for similar clinical effect. After all, that is what we were after. We had a very successful satellite link-up with 450 doctor sites around Australia. Professor Terry Campbell, a very well qualified gentleman from St Vincent's Hospital got that question.
I might at some time remind the member for Dobell, and even give him a copy of the video, of the answer that was given to that. Of course, for manufacturers it is a competitive business. In particular, this multinational manufacturer has been at great pains to try and point out that their product was better, but Professor Campbell on that occasion said he did not agree with that assessment. That is straying slightly from this bill. I am just commenting on the contributions made by my colleagues. Again, I thank them and I commend the bill. | Australia | 1,998 |
It gives me great pleasure to speak on this report of the Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform, attending as I did their hearings in Bathurst last year, at which they received evidence from many local organisations, including councils from CENTROC, the central west regional organisation. I suspect that they were a little surprised not to hear any parochial pleadings from that group for special help for roads in their own areas, but they concentrated their attention on the quite deficient state of the Great Western Highway, quite outside their own area of responsibility but hugely important for the economic development of the central west. I will allude to that particular link as I move through my contribution. I hope, but very much doubt, whether this inquiry of itself will lead to much improvement in Australia's underfunded and inadequate road transport network. But I guess it has at least put in train strategies to complete an inventory of our road needs. Clearly, we need to spend much more on our roads and we need to ensure that money is spent as wisely as possible. Of particular interest to me is recommendation 12 that projects, funded under roads of national importance, be prioritised on the basis of substantial net economic benefits using cost-benefit ratios. Such a study on the Great Western Highway is now under way by Charles Sturt University in Bathurst and I trust the state and federal authorities will avail themselves of this data in determining their road funding priorities. This inquiry has made many worthwhile recommendations but I think perhaps we get a lot of value in the dissenting report from the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron), who boldly suggested the Commonwealth should vacate funding and management of road projects altogether. I listened to his contribution in the last session of parliament with interest. I do not know that I agree with all he says but as we concentrate more and more on the inadequacies of our constitution and the role of the states, in particular, and their taxing
powers or lack thereof, I really think we should include the sort of issue raised in this report by the member for Parramatta. Our only hope of injecting more badly needed funds will come with a fairer tax collection system and a fairer regional distribution of those scarce government funds with an increasing degree of private investment. We just do not have the tax resources in this country to fund our road needs and so the member for Parramatta's support for private sector involvement in the so-called BOOT—build, own, operate and transfer—projects has a lot of merit. We are simply chasing the bigger and bigger road transport rigs around this country, patching up from behind, rather than being able to invest in the quality and safety of road we require, particularly in regional and rural areas. I am most concerned, as are the highway safety action group in the central west and the Newell Highway promotions committee, at the announcement of a $100,000 study. It is not so much the spending on the study but the possible introduction of 36-metre road trains over the length of that highway, despite documentation that shows a lack of overtaking opportunities and many unsafe areas on a highway with a notorious safety record. The highway safety group has challenged the minister to produce a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to prove the claimed economic benefits of such a move and I hope that will be forthcoming. If the study does properly examine the implications for trafficability, overtaking opportunities, bridge strength and road safety, as the minister's press release suggested, then I suggest the necessary improvements could be in the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars worth, with two-kilometre long overtaking sections obviously being necessary to get around the road trains on these long, fast and congested sections. They would have to be there on a very regular basis, I would suggest. Because this route is the major inland link from Melbourne to the sunshine of Queensland, carrying as it does throughout the year hundreds of thousands of tourists, buses, cars and caravans, travelling north and south, the introduction of 36-metre road trains to this mix has alarmed a lot of road safety authorities. We would have to improve that infrastructure to the tune of many hundreds of millions of dollars before we could begin to think of introducing road trains. We are ignoring in this country's transport infrastructure the existing rail infrastructure and the need to create more. The inland Melbourne-Darwin rail link, I believe, makes far more economic sense than the Adelaide-Darwin link. Infrastructure experts I speak with agree with that. We should look at the irrationality of not getting heavy and hazardous freight on to rail. If private funding was found for urban ring-roads and motorways, surely it should free up those scarce public funds for roads of national importance. That brings me back to the Great Western Highway. Despite having some reservations about the report, I am pleased to say that it has finally recognised the inadequacy of this highway, which is the lifeline connecting the people of inland New South Wales with Sydney. The road still follows much the same winding path that Blaxland, Wentworth and Lawson trod in 1813. Despite a lot of work in recent years, it falls far short of the type of major commercial link that western New South Wales should have to Sydney—and the other way around. More use of rail—with incentives, if necessary, for users—should be part of any plan to improve those Sydney to central west links. But major and hard decisions have to be taken about how we can provide a road of national status and standard through that Blue Mountains
area. Tunnels, bypasses of mountain villages, and certainly a wider, less congested route have all been suggested. Real planning, and not putting off or patching, should be the aim. The Great Western Highway accident and fatality rates are much higher than for the Pacific Highway, into which this government has channelled many millions of dollars. This report published evidence that the Great Western Highway is of an `inferior standard . . . in terms of pavement condition and capacity', `has contributed to a poor safety record' and `has constrained the development and efficiency of the agriculture sector and manufacturing industries' in central western New South Wales. It does not get any plainer than that. The government and the opposition can talk about regional development all they like, but regional development will remain an elusive pipedream for the people of inland New South Wales, unless this highway is brought up to an acceptable, world-class standard. To help that, there should be rail transport of heavy and hazardous freight across the mountains. Timber from Oberon will be travelling that road in ever increasing amounts, because the state government and the CSR organisation reneged on their agreement to upgrade the Tarana-Oberon rail line. Timber from Oberon, coal from the western fields and fuel from Sydney must all be part of the equation and must go onto rail. Rail must be part of this upgrade, if we are talking any sort of economic rationality about the link between Sydney and the west. I am saddened to say that I am one of the many people in my electorate who have lost a loved one on this road. I too have had to go to the morgue to identify a body robbed of life at a shamefully young age, for the simple reasons that the bulk freight on one vehicle involved should by rights have been on rail and that the highway was, to quote the report again, of an `inferior standard . . . in terms of pavement condition and capacity.' Well, it certainly was. Public action after a series of fatalities, including that one on this highway, and the formation of the Highway Safety Action Group, led to urgent work on sections of this highway in 1992-93. But the remainder of the link, from Lithgow to Bathurst, and the Mitchell Highway to Orange, remain inadequate by any judgment—and woefully so in parts. I realise there are other members who would also have, in their electorates, major arterial roads with shocking safety records—all roads which require many millions of dollars to be channelled into them. It saddens me to see no real national, non-political, road blueprint. Unfortunately, as with everything else, politics comes into play with road funding. The Labor Party is now quick to condemn the current government for failing to make the Great Western Highway a road of national importance, but there was no such funding forthcoming from the Keating government. The present government is fond of pretending it is really doing a lot for roads, but it has in fact continued the trend of cutting back in real terms, a trend that started under the previous government, way back in the 1991-92 financial year. In that year, almost $2.2 billion was spent on roads in today's terms; this year, spending is down to $1.5 billion. As the opposition is wont to point out, the present government slashed $600 million from road funding in the coalition's first budget. But it was really only taking a more enthusiastic cut to a budget that had already been whittled back by Labor over the previous few years. Sure, this government has reinstituted the black spot program: a very worthwhile program which has benefited my electorate, and for which I am grateful. But that is worth only $37 million per year, nationwide. I say it is a $37 million sales job because government MPs go about crowing how they have reinstated the black spot program but, sadly, forget to mention how they have continued
Labor's policy of slashing road funding. They took $600 million out and put $37 million back. I believe the media attractive but fiscally challenged black spot program was reinstated as a deliberate ploy to try to divert attention away from the overall funding cut. It is really quite pathetic to see local government plead, when you go and talk to them, for black spot funding. It is almost their only source of help for the roads running through their areas which have cement trucks, school buses and tourist buses travelling over gravel corners. The Ilford-Sofala road, for example, is a black spot waiting to happen. I know, and they know, they have very little chance of success in gaining funding for these projects that are crying out for help. I have to explain, time and time again, that there is available only $37 million Australia-wide a year. That is about 100 kilometres of road, at best, around Australia. I say that as a member whose electorate has been better treated than most in funding under this program. But it is a very paltry assistance program, given the enormity of the problem out there. We need to be more visionary about our mix of road and rail and about our introduction of private operators to provide some of those urban roads in particular. I compliment the hardworking members of the committee for their report. I know it is a difficult subject area and a hugely political one. But the very worthwhile sentiments and recommendations expressed in this report can only be addressed with real money—private and government—and by a regeneration of the rail transport option. | Australia | 1,998 |
May I first of all pass on my thanks to the committee secretariat—in particular to Meg Crooks for her very professional work, for the support she gave the committee during what was a very extensive hearing period, and for helping all members of the committee get through what was a very extensive and complex question. In addressing the report on the review of federal road funding, I wish to point out that the terms of reference were both clear and concise. Sometimes I worry; this does not always happen. I believe these terms have been well met by the committee. In reviewing the Commonwealth's role in road funding, with the goal of identifying the most effective means of fulfilling that role, it was clearly obvious that we do not have a long-term national strategic plan for the nation's road system or, for that matter, a land transport network. In fact, it is unfortunate that the committee found no cohesive plan on either a state to state level or a federal level. Neither does there appear to have ever been a proposal to generate one. Confusion resulting from a lack of a clear strategic outlook has resulted in ineffectiveness and inefficiencies. The end result of ad hoc and crisis planning is always a blow-out in funding. I believe this report identifies the many ways we can improve our road system at a better return on funds for the taxpayer. Any Australian who travelled through Germany in the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s will remember how they returned home marvelling at the length and breadth of the German autobahns. Here were endless four- and six-lane freeways with no speed limit in the outer lane. At that time, all but the major roads in this country were dusty gravel tracks. Many of our so-called national highways were two lanes at most and with many a winding turn. The German autobahns were originally designed and constructed for one reason and one reason alone, and that was for military purposes. After the end of the Second World War they became part of that country's economic revival. These vast and fast highways were planned without consideration of social or environmental
constraints and their very reason for being was certainly questionable. But, in terms of road construction, the German autobahns still stand as some of the finest roadways in the world. My months as a member of the standing committee and my work on the inquiry into federal road funding have made me acutely aware of the urgent need for Australia to form a strategic plan for transporting its people and goods across this country. We must consider the environmental and social ramifications and, as we do so, retain what is the core of our great nation, that is, a community spirit. Ripping a huge slice of road through a small township or well-established suburban community is simply not the way to go. Our national road system has been patched rather than planned, and this is evident not only in Queensland but in all other states. I do not need to tell the many road users of the many instances where a superhighway of four lanes abruptly ends to convert into a double or single lane roadway. We have seen the example of good planning with Brisbane's Gateway arterial and road access for the Brisbane port. The Gateway arterial links two major freeways, giving users efficient and fast access to the Brisbane domestic and international airports. It also bypasses the city centre and the majority of the city's urban areas. It therefore is a fast and efficient traffic mover for people travelling north or south of the city of Brisbane, and they can do so without clogging up the city or suburban streets. As the Commonwealth government is responsible for the funding of our national highway system, I believe it is vital that we demonstrate our commitment to a top quality and safe highway system which sets the benchmark for the states to follow. To ensure a national road system where standards are high throughout the country, it is important that the Commonwealth introduces greater certainty in road funding. As our reintroduction of black spot funding has shown, the Commonwealth government can make an impact on the safety and quality of roads from the highway system down to the individual suburban intersections. The people of Australia must know that if they believe there is a serious road problem in their neighbourhood, despite the involvement of the three levels of government, they can expect action. I agree with the committee's resolve that the responsibility for each category of road should be clearly defined, not just to avoid the passing of responsibility from one level of government to the other but to encourage clear accountability in road funding. Our first goal, as clearly stated in this road inquiry report, is for the Commonwealth to continue to be fully responsible for our national highway system and to continue to fund roads of national importance, but not at the expense of other road systems. For this reason, I stand behind our decision to hold off any further extension of the national highway. There are too many other major roads of economic importance to be funded before we start extending the national highway. As the development of these other roads brings economic benefit to individual states and territories, an equal share of the construction cost is appropriate. The other members of this committee are well aware of my interest in strategic planning. I certainly was not alone in my concerns for the lack of a national transport plan for this nation. The committee was inundated with evidence critical of this lapse and revealing the dangers in the ad hoc program which currently exists. The states, along with the Australian Road Federation, have thrown their support behind our recommendation for a national strategic transport plan. Among the many people who gave generously of their time and effort to contribute to this inquiry were the Cement and Concrete Association of Australia. This organisation pointed out the additional costs that are incurred when there is no ongoing forward plan for major road construction. As it currently stands, many contractors retrenched valuable skilled staff during low levels of federal road construction funding. The cost to let go and rehire these skilled technicians is then reflected in future tender prices. With a long-term planning program in place, the government can minimise construction costs by establishing continuity in short- and long-term funding of major projects. I also support the committee's resolve to incorporate in a long-term planning strategy the integration of all forms of land transport. We have seen the result in the rail system, where a lack of national planning resulted in different gauges for different states. We cannot afford to maintain a dysfunctional national transport system, and improving the quality of a road is meaningless unless it connects to other forms of transport. I refer there to rail, airports and seaports. Currently, our national highway does not meet these needs. In some cases, a state highway, or an urban arterial, is the only connection between the national highway and other forms of transport. The states' and territories' role in our road transport network will be made easier and more economical when everyone is working on an overall plan. Therefore, I support the committee's recommendation that untied road funding paid to the states and territories and local government be paid as tied block grants and maintained in real terms. This will ensure that all Commonwealth moneys directed to roads will reach the target, and not be transferred elsewhere by the states, territories or local governments. I also support the recommendation that we implement a guaranteed funding approach for a rolling three-year period. This recommendation ensures good planning for all levels of government and assists greatly with the contracting process I discussed earlier. The use of tied funds will ensure that the limited available funding is targeted towards achieving national outcomes. This gets back to the important point raised by the Cement and Concrete Association, who suffer financial loss due to the unpredictability of Commonwealth funded projects. The investment by contractors in skilled operators and high cost road construction equipment must be considered as, ultimately, the cost of all road construction falls back on the taxpayer. CSR Emoleum, a major road surfacing company, pointed out to the committee that uncertainty of future road funding levels had inhibited reinvestment in new equipment which, in turn, led to missed opportunities in introducing new technology. This result eventually limits the ability of such a company to achieve an even higher quality of work. Again, in the long run, it means a higher cost to be borne by the taxpayer. The Queensland Department of Main Roads advised the committee that a current process of annual appropriations raises such a degree of uncertainty for our road programs that project planning, environmental considerations and public consultation are seriously impaired. For that reason alone, I support the committee's recommendation that we implement a guaranteed funding approach for a rolling three-year period. Another aspect considered by the committee is the private sector involvement. I support the principle of private sector involvement in public infrastructure. At this stage, the Commonwealth has had no direct private sector investment, or ownership arrangement, in its road infrastructure responsibilities, but it can be seen as indirectly supporting the opportunity for
investment and ownership of road infrastructure on its tax incentive programs. This inquiry, has studied the three broad forms of private sector involvement and has found some of them wanting. The committee supports the provision of road infrastructure through the competitive tendering for design and construct contracts where work is carried out by the private sector. But financing and ownership remain with the government. When it comes to what is known as the BOOT scheme, where the private operator builds, owns and operates the road until the end of the contract, there is evidence to indicate that this is unlikely to be the best method of delivering Commonwealth road projects. A case in point is the road into Maroochydore on the Queensland Sunshine Coast which was built by the private sector under a BOOT scheme. The new toll road was not popular with the community and, while efficient, was not far from an alternative route, and the community chose to use the alternative route. The state government of Queensland, had to buy the road and remove the toll. Both the new road and the alternative route carry an equitable and comfortable traffic flow. This project is an example of a lack of planning. The community did not want, or need, the new road at that time. There is no reason to wipe this method of road construction off the books, but I believe that it is up to the government to find a mechanism to make it acceptable and agreeable to everyone. The committee recognised that private sector investors will only look for financial benefits. The government has a role in ensuring that resource allocation is improved with respect to social benefits. The third aspect of the private sector involvement is the maintenance of roads by the private contractors. In this case, the private sector involvement is for works only and not associated with investment or ownership. As with all cases, the committee believes that proposals for private sector involvement in road projects should be considered on a case by case basis. The fact that we need a national plan for our road and transport network is evident. I believe this report clearly outlines all the ramifications, and therefore the recommendations. I am pleased to give my support to that report. | Australia | 1,998 |
It is with some very considerable interest that I rise to address some of the matters referred to in this very important document by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and Microeconomic Reform entitled Planning not patching: an inquiry into federal road funding . I would certainly compliment the chairman of the committee, the member for Lyne (Mr Vaile), who has now of course been elevated to Minister for Transport and Regional Development, so he is going to have to act on his own report. That will be a matter of considerable interest, I am sure, to all of us. I would also like to compliment the previous speaker, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr McDougall), who, I know, as a member of that committee, would have worked extremely hard. In fact, I have to declare an interest in that I made a submission to the committee and appeared before the committee at its hearing in Melbourne. The member for Griffith was one of several members of the committee at that hearing who gave me a very rigorous work-out. I think the report is a substantial piece of work. I think the committee has come up with some very sound recommendations. I am not going to attempt to address them all here this morning but I will pick up on a few critical points. I compliment the committee on its work and on the calibre of its findings. It is important when we talk about this particular report that we understand that the committee's terms of reference were that it was to talk about the approach we take to road funding. They were not in terms `Are we going to build this bit of road or that bit of road?' Or, `How much funding in real dollar terms are we going to spend?' I know in my electorate that a number of members of the public and those people who had a vested interest, either pro-public transport or pro-roads or whatever, misunderstood the purpose of the inquiry and thought that the committee was putting in bids for particular pieces of road. That was not the case. The first point I make is that the committee has quite clearly come up with a recommendation that we need to have a national plan, and that is of vital importance. One of the reasons that Australia has often found difficulty in a number of its endeavours, historically, is that so many things tend to be state by state. Occasionally, there is a bit of interstate linkage. But the reality of life—whether you are talking about gun control or environmental control or poisons control or labelling or the road system—is that, increasingly, what we do affects Australia, and not just one small part of Australia. So national planning is an absolute key. I am delighted to note that two of my colleagues, the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas) and the honourable member for Groom (Mr Taylor), have come to hear this learned dissertation—not arriving early for the adjournment debate, I am sure. I note that my colleagues have arrived for that purpose. So national planning is very important. The second important point that comes out in the report as far as I can see is the emphasis on getting transparency in the system. One has suspicions that the basis of some decisions that are made as to where road funding might go are not always understood. I think that causes a lot of emotional difficulty amongst those who are proponents of particular systems. The third point that comes out fairly clearly in the report is that, in decisions about where road funding will go, the question of economic benefit has to be, if not the dominant factor, certainly a much more important factor than perhaps has been the case historically. I think that, historically, with the national highway system we have had a bit of a mentality of wanting to join places on maps with dots from A to B; we wanted to join up the capital cities or go to other particular towns. Whether there has been real economic benefits in some of those roads has perhaps been questionable. In my submission to the committee, economic benefit was the main point that I wanted to make. But I would add that the submission that I actually signed off and put in was not just a submission on my own behalf. In fact, the submission which I wrote and coordinated was signed off by eight federal members of parliament, by 16 state members of parliament and by eight local government authorities covering the whole of the eastern part of metropolitan Melbourne. The point that we were trying to make, fundamentally, is that in Melbourne, because of the size of the spread of the metropolitan boundary, the major road development that needs to go on—particularly in the eastern suburbs, which has seen huge development in population and industry terms in the last quarter of a century—has, frankly, not kept pace with the growth that has gone on there. We were not saying to the committee, `We want you to recommend funding for us.' What we were saying was, firstly, that under the present structure there is no way that the state government can come up with the necessary finance, and, secondly, under the present system
it appears that there is no way that major roads in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne are going to get funded as roads of national importance. Our concern was that something like 46 per cent of economic activity, particularly manufacturing activity, takes place in that part of Melbourne. A huge part of the population base lives in that part of Melbourne. Because of the over-congestion of economic activity on the present road system we have dreadful road safety and pollution problems, and the economic activity of the companies who operate in that part of Australia are severely handicapped. With the growth of Melbourne going south-east, that problem is going to be exacerbated because so much of the activity in the east and south-east of Melbourne is either going to the ports or going up north, and there is no major road to connect them to the Hume Highway or to the Western Ring Road. We put forward as an example the need to build the Eastern Ring Road, incorporated in the Scoresby transport corridor. We pointed out that, although there is high economic justification in national Australian terms, there nevertheless was no way that that could happen under the present system. We therefore felt that it was necessary that the way in which roads are assessed and decisions are made about funding is looked at much more in a national context based on economic benefit. That is of critical importance. Having talked very briefly about that submission, which is aimed exclusively at demonstrating that we really are not putting the emphasis in the right direction, I will say that a number of the recommendations that have been made by the committee go a long way towards taking that message on board. Recommendations 5 and 6, recommendation 12 and recommendation 15 in the report are recommendations that are particularly noteworthy and worth drawing attention to. Finally, I would like to say a very brief word on the subject of overall funding. I would certainly like to urge the government to allocate more overall funding for roads in this country, because it is a vital area. I would certainly like to encourage the minister in that line. Private sector involvement is a fact of life. For example, in Melbourne at the moment we have the City Link project, which is very much going to be privately funded. I think that will be a very interesting exercise in how viable such a thing is. I commend the report; I commend the members of the committee for doing a good job and I encourage the minister—now that he is the minister—who was chairman at the time, to implement his own report. | Australia | 1,998 |
At the outset I would like to state that I did not realise this report was coming up as quickly as it has. At the same time, I would like to put on the record of Hansard that it is going to give me a golden opportunity to welcome the many visitors we have from Italy today who are my guests in the gallery and who I know will be having a very enjoyable day here in parliament. I sincerely welcome them to Australia. In speaking on this report on the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act, I would like to elaborate on a number of points. One is that, even though the report may appear to be exact,
I have to refer the author to page 113, which I have just very quickly looked at, and remind the author that Fairfield is not a shire. Fairfield City Council, which I am so proudly associated with, became a city in 1979, so obviously that is an error in the report that has been tabled before the House. They do quote correctly their population figures, of roughly 187,150, but I am sure that they would like to be declared a city. How I know that they are a city is that I happened to be the mayor at the time. When we made Fairfield a city, it had been a municipality prior to that. It is now a city, a very large city, and is classified as such in this report when we talk about the population. I am pleased also that another area I represent, Holroyd, which has a population in excess of 82,000, at least has been declared in the correct category, that is, as a city. This report talks mainly about the allocation of funding, particularly under capital grants. One of the problems of local government in New South Wales in particular is the tied rating structure that has been in existence for quite some time. They have also expressed the anomalies that with the granting of money to local government we seem to take into account some aspects but not others. Fairfield, for example, which I know very well, would say that over a period of time when they had been very much a growing city a lot of the infrastructure that they had to build was not taken into account in the allocation of grants. I also believe, and I am sure many of my colleagues would agree with me, particularly as we have just had debate on a report on roads, the patching of roads and the building and financing of roads, that one of the anomalies done in the past—it was under our government; I admit to that—was when, following a Premiers Conference of 1990 or 1991, we decided that the allocation of funding to local government for roads would be untied. I know local government welcomed that and said that we should be the masters of our own destiny; that we were old enough to say where our money should be spent. I query whether that money should have gone as untied. I queried it at the time and, sitting on the committee whose report on road funding is also before the House, I still continue to query whether those grants should be tied or untied. Nevertheless, that is up to the government and it is for future local governments, I believe, to put their propositions forward as to whether or not that funding should remain untied. There is another problem we have with the allocation of financing in this country, again, particularly in New South Wales. We have 178 councils in New South Wales. I think the last amalgamations we experienced in that state were in the early 1970s. If my memory serves me correctly—and I see the honourable member for Page (Mr Causley) agreeing with me—at that time there was all the hoo-ha in the shire area particularly where a number of anomalies came across in our state because of the inadequacies of those shires in rate structure; therefore, for the area they have to look after, they have not got the means and the wherewithal to do it. At that time, in the early 1970s, we had something like 34 shires amalgamated into something like 15 larger areas in rural New South Wales. I still today would question that and whether we should not look at the size of some of the local government areas which have got to distribute the workload, and also whether they have the means with which to do it. I think at times when the Local Government Grants Commission looks at the aspects of funding some of those things are not necessarily taken into account. I am pleased that the report has covered a number of merit points, where councils are now starting to get their acts together. In particular, if you go to chapter 5 of this report where we look at benchmarking, we are looking at what councils are now starting to do in coming
together on a regional basis. I represent an area that is very much part of WSROC, which is the Western Sydney Regional Organisation of Councils. It has been able to bring local government together in that area and to start looking at some projects in which they can save both the constituencies which they represent— | Australia | 1,998 |
Having been part of the Procedure Committee which recommended that this adjournment debate opportunity be provided in the Main Committee, I think it is a very good thing and I look forward to the opportunity of participating in that. The suburb of Strathmore within my own electorate of Wills has terrific sense of place and a terrific sense of community. In a sense, it has had to have that, because it has been confronted over the years with a number of major challenges. No matter what the issue—whether it is an expression of local concern about the operations of the Essendon airport or concerns about the impact of Tullamarine Freeway widening through the City Link project or the planning issues involving the impact on the community of multistorey units—Strathmore people have rallied to protect the value of their suburb and their community and to protect it in the way that is more commonly associated with country towns. It is a place which has a great sense of its own identity and that has certainly been something that I have valued as its representative. Against that background, the people of Strathmore rallied very strongly to try and save the Commonwealth Bank when it announced that it would close the Strathmore branch. I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of many people from the Strathmore community, in particular, Rock Pinder and Geoff Kirschner from the Strathmore Traders Association who organised much of the local campaign against that branch closure. My own office received in excess of 100 phone calls. That would be more than I have received on any other single issue. We have over 2,000 petition signatures, and I have a copy of them here this afternoon. We had many letters. When we held a meeting at the Strathmore Bowling Club, over 200 people attended to express their very strong protest against the bank's intentions. Regrettably, the bank said, `We are going to do this anyway; we are going to close the Strathmore branch,' and it did close on 20 February. I make the observation that these branch closures and staff sackings are not being accompanied by lower fees and charges. On the contrary, they are being accompanied by higher fees and charges, and banks are endeavouring to get us all, coming and going. I did write to the National Bank, which also has a branch in the Strathmore village shopping centre, seeking assurances from the National Bank that they would retain their branch in Strathmore. I suggested to them that people would transfer their accounts from the Commonwealth to the National, provided they had those assurances. The National Bank's response to me said: Whilst the bank conducts regular reviews of its network to ensure service standards are maintained, no current plans are in train for a review of our Strathmore outlet.
I think that is reassuring in the short term, but perhaps not so reassuring in the longer term. The rest of their letter talks about things which are not reassuring at all—such as the need for banks to move in line with changes in the community, customers showing an increasing trend towards acceptance of technology and electronic delivery. The bank said: The need for a full service/time branch is gradually diminishing. I do not accept those propositions. As to changes in the community, Strathmore community is not changing in that sense. It is not going anywhere. As for increasing acceptance of the new technology, people are simply given no choice. A fact of life is that, for many older people, automatic teller machines are not a satisfactory alternative. Indeed, there have been a couple of robberies of people at automatic teller machines—so far not from the Strathmore area—and this does not give older people an appropriate feeling of assurance and safety. I am most concerned about the impact of this branch closure on older people and on shopping centres. I also want to express concern about the gain sharing issue. From the new technology, we see no benefits for ordinary members of the community who lose things like their branches. The benefits all go to people at the top—the chief executives and so on. I have some figures not from the Commonwealth Bank but from Westpac which show their chief executive received $1.9 million in the last financial year, with a bonus of $750,000. For the average person in Wills, it would take in the order of 30 years to earn the bonus, let alone the total salary. We have a situation where the gains from new technology are not adequately being shared out and the banks need to take account of this and to lift their game. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
I rise in this adjournment debate today to pay tribute to the late Roger Dean, a great Australian and a true Territorian. My sincere condolences go to his children Michael and Julia, his brother Colin, and to his grandchildren. Roger Levinge Dean, CBE, was born in Sydney in December 1913 and died in Sydney in January 1998. His early years were spent in Newcastle, between 1913 and 1942, where he was educated at Newcastle Church of England Grammar School and at Newcastle Boys High School. In fact, there are a lot of members of parliament today who have been educated at Newcastle Boys High School. It must have been a very good stamping ground for future MPs.He joined the Newcastle based company Rylands Brothers in 1935 as a clerk, aged 22. He was commissioned into the AIF in 1942 and arrived in Darwin within weeks of Darwin being bombed in February 1942. He rose to the rank of lieutenant in the 103rd Anti-tank Regiment. His unit travelled extensively throughout the Top End investigating rumours of enemy landings along the remote coastline. It was here that he made his first contact with Aboriginal communities, which led to his great interest in Aboriginal advancement in the Northern Territory. Later in the war years he joined a waterborne unit and served as beach master in the Wewak campaign. At war's end he rejoined Rylands Brothers in Newcastle. In 1949 he gained Liberal Party preselection for the seat of Robertson, a seat located north of the Hawkesbury River. The current member for Robertson (Mr Lloyd) made some comments in the parliament yesterday in regard to Roger Dean's involvement with the political infrastructure. It was during a Liberal Party candidates convention that he met his future wife, Ann Manning, whom he married in 1950. They had two children, Julia and Michael, and Ann died in 1982.He was counted among the so-called `Menzies 49ers', candidates whose views and character were shaped by the Depression and by the war years. He remained as the member for Robertson for 15 years, between 1949 and 1964, fighting and winning seven elections in that time in a seat which changed industrially and socially and which underwent several redistributions. He served on numerous parliamentary delegations and committees including in 1963 as chairman of a parliamentary select committee investigating the grievances of the Yirrkala people. That was also referred to yesterday by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Melham).His involvement with the Northern Territory really started in 1964 when he resigned as a member of parliament to accept the appointment as Administrator of the Northern Territory. His previous interest in Aboriginal matters was seen as part of his qualifications for the Administrator's job. He was there during a period of great change in Territory affairs. When appointed he was also President of the Legislative Council and Commissioner of Police. In 1964, as the Northern Territory parliament started to evolve, the Legislative Council obtained the right to elect its own president. Roger Dean lost his job as council president and a gentleman called Harry Chan was elected to the post. Despite that, Roger maintained a strong interest in the Legislative Council and after losing his job as president had the PMG provide a direct line from Hansard to his office so he would not miss out on what was going on in parliament. He played a very significant role in a period of new Commonwealth expenditure commitment, particularly the construction of the Territory's beef roads. He supported Aboriginal advancement including Legislative Council amendments allowing rents from Aboriginal reserve leases, timber and mining to be used to provide employment in Aboriginal communities, something that is happening in the Northern Territory today. He travelled extensively throughout the Northern Territory including visiting Wattie Creek in 1968 during the Aboriginal pastoral strike. In 1968 he received a Commander of the British Empire honour for public and community service. A quote from Jim Bowditch in the Northern Territory News in 1970 really explains Roger Dean. He said: A plain man, kindly and endowed with an extraordinarily successful talent for communicating with people. Jim Bowditch also said in the Northern Territory News in 1970:He will always have a special place in the memories of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Aborigines. His frankness and unpretentious manner won friends wherever he went. He retired in 1974. He maintained a strong link with America, becoming the federal Vice-President of the Australia-America Association. My final quote is from Sir John Carrick in the Australian of 19 January 1998. He wrote: A happy, friendly man with a deep-throated infectious chuckle reserved for the world's whimsies and frailties. He was hard to dislike even in the fierce cut and thrust of politics where he was a worthy opponent. My sincere condolences go to his family. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
Last Friday, 27 February, I had the pleasure of helping to organise and being part of an event of the type that makes the Illawarra labour movement great. On this day some 130 people, local politicians, civic dignitaries, trade union
officials and workers gathered at the Dapto Leagues Club to commemorate the famous Dalfram dispute of 1938. The Illawarra Labor movement came together to recognise the crucial role played by the Port Kembla Waterfront Workers Federation and its membership. It was 60 years ago this year that the Waterside Workers Federation led the Illawarra labour movement and stood by what it has always stood for since: principles, fairness, justice, community and human rights. Last Friday we paid a special and long overdue tribute to the three remaining wharfies who were involved in the Dalfram dispute: Norm Gamble, popularly known as `Sunshine', Alan Hetherington and Ray Elliott. They embody the heroes involved in the Dalfram dispute 60 years ago. Although the dispute did not commence until 14 November 1938, all of us in the Illawarra labour movement thought it entirely appropriate that `Sunshine', Alan and Ray be honoured for their enormous contribution. I particularly want to take this opportunity to have recorded in Hansard my thanks to the Chinese ambassador to Australia, His Excellency Mr Hua Junduo. His remarks at the luncheon were especially warm, appreciated and very well received by all guests. It is important to note that the luncheon on Friday is perhaps one of the last official functions the ambassador will attend. He is about to complete his diplomatic service to Australia and will return to China to take up a senior posting in the Chinese Ministry for Foreign Affairs. I am pleased that in the ambassador's final round of engagements he had the opportunity to join us to celebrate and commemorate this dispute, which established a strong and still firm bond between the People's Republic of China and the Illawarra. The Dalfram dispute has a special significance in the social, political and industrial history of Australia. Today, 60 years later, the image of the wharfie and the WWF—the Maritime Union of Australia as it is now—is maligned at every opportunity by all members of the Howard government. Back then in 1938, on the eve of World War II, the wharfies and the Waterside Workers Federation faced up to a conservative Lyons government and a conservative business establishment. Today they face the same situation—a conservative Howard government and business establishment. Today, just as in 1938, the wharfies and their union line up against political and commercial forces ready to impose their will, prepared to destroy their jobs and security and to destroy their union. In 1938, `Sunshine', Alan and Ray, along with their comrades, stood up against the government and business to defeat appeasement and the prospect of the infliction of more death and destruction upon the people of China by an aggressive Japan. The Chinese ambassador made a telling point in his remarks on Friday, saying that the Dalfram dispute was remarkable in that the wharfies did not undertake an industrial action to further their own pay or conditions. Wharfies and their unions stood up for China and its people against aggression, against the appeasement of the Lyons government and for Australian lives. BHP, as ever, put profit before human lives. They were earning huge profits from the export of pig iron to Japan. Then Attorney-General Menzies tried to bring in scab labour. He rightly earned the unflattering name, `Pig Iron Bob', which stayed with him for the rest of his life. There is no doubt that, on the eve of World War II, the pig iron the Lyons government was determine to see loaded aboard the Dalfram would return to Australia in a shower of exploded metal— | Australia | 1,998 |
This is the first opportunity, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I have had to offer my congratulations to Speaker Sinclair and I would ask that you pass on my best wishes. I am sure he will leave his indelible mark on that most prestigious position. The reason I jump is that I wanted to take the opportunity, very briefly, to pay tribute to his predecessor. I do not do that as somebody who has been in the parliament with Bob Halverson as the member for Casey for the last 10 years but as somebody who, I think, has known Bob for arguably longer than anybody in either chamber in this parliament. I think that is probably fairly accurate. I first met Bob Halverson in 1957 when Bob was the senior cadet at the officer cadet school in Portsea in Victoria. I was a navy cadet and unfortunately, during an escape and evasion exercise, I had been captured and I was interrogated by somebody I will always remember—a White Russian by the name of Kovalenko—and in the process he got me to sign a piece of paper. I signed this piece of paper, thinking that I was signing for my baggage to be returned after the escape and evasion exercise. However, it was an application form for OCS Portsea. So, for my sins, I had to spend three days at OCS Portsea, as a navy cadet, being redrilled for three days under the auspices of Bob Halverson and trying to learn to be an army cadet. That was my first experience of Bob Halverson. The second experience was when we both served together in the sixties in the Australian embassy in Washington DC—myself as a young navy lieutenant in the naval attache's office and Bob as a flight lieutenant in the air attache's office. We spent a lot of time professionally and personally and on the squash court and off the squash court over a couple of years in that embassy. In the seventies, Bob, as a three-stripe wing commander and I, as a commander, spent exchange in the United Kingdom together—Bob in RAF training command and myself working for the Vice-Chief of the Defence Force, then General Bramwell and now Lord Bramwell. Bob, of course, for the great work that he obviously did during that period of time was awarded the OBE and I know that he was held in the highest regard by the senior officers in the Royal Air Force. Of course, Bob then, after a while, left the air force as a group captain, by which time I was a navy captain and I went on to be the Director-General of Supply as a one-star commodore. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I feel sure that had Bob Halverson stayed on in the air force, he and I would have been directors-general of supply together—he of the air force and I of the navy. When I decided to resign, as a one-star, to preselect to come into this parliament at the end of 1987, one of the first persons to contact me was the member for Casey. Bob and I have been great mates over a long period of time. I regard him as a very close friend. He put his stamp on the office of Speaker. He put every effort into that job that he possibly could. What are the characteristics of Bob Halverson? I think he is a true leader; I think he is somebody who communicates with people; he can be tough at times as, indeed, he has had
to be, particularly in his previous capacity as Chief Opposition Whip. I think that when he leaves the parliament at the end of this particular parliament, he and I will leave together. It is one of those things; we seemed to have followed each other right through the Defence Force and now through the parliament. Of course, when Bob does finally leave this parliament, I hope that there is another capacity in which he can serve this country. He will do so very well. Of course, it comes down to leadership. He is a very loyal person: he is loyal to his party; he is loyal to the parliament; and he is loyal to his family. I take the opportunity to thank Maggie for her assistance, and also to thank Pauline Osmond, in his office, without whom he would not have been able to do the job that he did. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
Just quickly in this adjournment debate, I want to say something about the waterfront and to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the far greater potential for improvement in efficiency and productivity is in the journey to and from the waterfront. I would suggest to members of the committee that they take the time to read the Warehouse to wharf report of 1992 and the Warehouse to wharf final report, in which the member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) played a very important role. In that report, we made the point that there was an `appalling apathy, ignorance and inertia' on the part of waterfront users. Going back to the Inter-State Commission reports, the examination of the `outside the gate' opportunity for productivity improvement showed that something in excess of $1 billion could be earned or saved, back then. If those numbers are adjusted for inflation, the figure rises to something in the order of $1½ billion today. When we did the second report at the end of 1995, we still found the same situation as in 1992: outdated financial documentary and logistic practices were continuing impediments to improved performance and the even flow of cargo to and from the waterfront. We found that there was still little interest from waterfront users. The most telling contribution was made by a waterfront users group. I quote from the Australian Shipping Users Group response to a question about the ignorance from importers and exporters of how the waterfront worked and the transport chain to and from the waterfront. In the 1992 inquiry, they said: It is not a case of ignorance or disinterest as much as a question of priorities. Individual firms do not see the waterfront as a key issue compared with other more pressing problems (maintaining sales, avoiding industrial disputes) and so do not accord it, or its problems, a high priority. That also explains why, when you go to major firms and even to smaller firms, you will not find a transport decision maker on the board and you will not find in the organisation a senior officer responsible for transport coordination decisions. You will generally find that those decisions are made by the purchase clerk, in the case of inbound purchases, or by the dispatch clerk. You will not find a transport person on the board of those organisations. They ought to be there. If you link the operation of the waterfront—which operates every hour of every day of every week of the year, into the origin or destination of cargoes from ships, you funnel that into less than office hours work, Monday to Friday. I wanted to make those points, because they put this whole debate into proper perspective. People can rail on with the old political agenda—`It's the wharfie; it's the wharfie; it's the wharfie!'—the mantra that conservatives have lived behind for decades. But go away from
the report that we did and turn to the report that came forward from the National Transport Planning Taskforce in late 1994. They had this to say: To date there has been little success in developing effective linkages between the modes. This failure is due to the unwillingness of the parties involved to compromise in the interest of providing coordinated intermodal services that suit the needs of users. There is a tendency to work around the problems. That brings me to the comparisons I made when I visited the port of Felixstowe on 11 December last. Felixstowe is the largest container terminal in the United Kingdom. It handles more containers—this year, probably about 2.2 million TEUs—than do all the Australian ports put together, and this along a strip of wharf about 1½ kilometres long. Its workers are paid between £28,000 and £35,000. When I asked these questions, they said, `Mind you, they work very long hours.' I asked, `What is a rough range?' and they said, `They work very long hours: there's a lot of overtime.' I asked, `But what range?' They said, `Between £28,000 and £35,000.' That is a range of from $A72,000 to $A105,000. It makes the point, in comparison to other industries, that the industry is global and that there a lot of similarities in how the whole thing functions. The actual operation—and I will go into this in a later speech, when I have the opportunity—shows that the same kind of things that happen there also happen in other ports around the world. It is a physical task—(Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
Late last year, I was introduced to the wonderful work of some very young people doing a pre-apprenticeship course in painting and decorating at the South East Metropolitan College, which is situated at Thornlie, in my electorate of Canning. The innovation and the talent that was displayed by the 13 students and their lecturers, Chris Coleman and Mike Haines, in creating murals on the walls of the campus cafeteria must, I believe, be recognised by everyone. Imagine a dull, uninteresting, grey wall, and then imagine it over and over and over: all around you, you see absolutely nothing but bricks; they are all one colour; they are very uninspiring; and they are extremely boring. Then you go there the next day—or perhaps you could imagine this—and you see this total transformation. You walk into the campus canteen and you find yourself surrounded by scenes from ancient Egypt. Instead of these dull, grey walls, there are now vibrant, exciting and perfectly crafted images of people, animals, objects, pyramids and waterways. Cooling oases and warm sunlight bounce at you from all directions. I want to congratulate Laurie Bull, the program administrator; the lecturers, whom I have already mentioned; and the 13 students at Thornlie TAFE on their fantastic result in attempting to brighten up the college environment whilst at the very same time teaching and learning very relevant trade skills. This project demonstrates very clearly that young people are very keen to learn new skills. They are keen to be guided into reaching their objectives and to put in extra time and effort, even if this means outside of school hours. These young people, aged between 15 and 16, have every right to feel very proud of and satisfied with their great work and, indeed, of what they have achieved. Once the idea of transforming the dull canteen walls into this exciting mural was conceived, architectural students from the Leederville TAFE College were asked to design a concept. The brief that was given to them was that they had to take note of the shape of the canteen itself, which was actually in the shape of a pyramid. Thus, the Egyptian concept was conceived. After that, the Thornlie TAFE students used an overhead projector to project computerised
images onto the walls. These were enlarged and the images traced in with chalk. All of this was done by the students themselves. The next step was for the students to methodically mix paint so that they could actually match the colours exactly to the original painting that they took their idea from. Then, of course, they had to go about filling in the mural and painting the walls. In doing this, they had to use distinctive brushes, strokes, techniques and methods that were all part of their syllabus. What they combined here was having some fun and learning skills according to the course. Almost 95 per cent of this unique project was completed by the students themselves. It gave them an excellent opportunity to work on a team project which was bound to be successful. I add too that this project had such an impact that it has been nominated for the best practice award for teaching methodology by the Building and Construction Industry Training Council. The Thornlie campus canteen will stand as an example of what can be achieved with innovation, dedication and determination on the part of not only the teachers but also the students. All too often I hear that young people are lacking interest; that they do not have the go or the motivation to do something. I would suggest that here is positive proof that most young people are keen to succeed. (Time expired) | Australia | 1,998 |
The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The time it takes to clear a cheque is a function of the time needed to transport, process and check the authenticity of the cheque, plus an allowance for the time it takes for any advice of dishonour to get back to the institution where the cheque was deposited. Where the bank is the recipient of the cheque, as is the case when a credit card account is paid, it must also take into account these factors. The current five-day clearance cycle for cheques is an industry standard although banks will allow some customers to draw against particular cheque deposits within the five-day period. In such situations, the bank in question is making a commercial judgement that the cheque will be paid, or that in the event of dishonour it can recover the funds it has allowed its customer to withdraw. I am conscious of community concern that the five-day cycle does not reflect developments in processing and communication technology in the banking industry. The Reserve Bank has been pressing the Australian Payments Clearing Association (whose membership includes banks, building societies and credit unions) to speed up its project to require electronic presentment of cheques and electronic communication of dishonour, with the objective of reducing cheque clearing times. I understand that this could reduce the current five-day clearance cycle to three or four days without increasing the risk that dishonour advice is received
after cheque proceeds have been allowed to be withdrawn. (2) Where a cheque is used to pay a credit card account, the (outstanding) balance of the account is immediately reduced, but it is at the discretion of the bank whether or not the credit limit is restored until the cheque has been cleared. This is the same treatment as cheques deposited to a customer's account whereby the account is credited and interest accrued, although the proceeds may generally not be withdrawn until the cheque has been cleared (see question 3 below). (3) Cheques deposited to an account accrue interest in the normal fashion from the day on which the cheque is deposited even though the funds have not been cleared and may generally not be withdrawn. | Australia | 1,998 |
Treasurer Mr Costello —The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 0 (1) Yes. New cars with a wholesale value up to and including $36,995 are presently taxed at 22%. New cars with a wholesale value above $36,995 are taxed at 45%. (2) No figures are available specifically for wholesale sales tax on new cars, however, total sales tax collected on goods comprising motor cars, commercial vehicles, motor bodies, semi-trailers etc since 1989-90 is approximately $13 billion. (3) Upon introduction of the wholesale sales tax regime in 1930 the rate of 2.5% applied to all goods, including new cars. (4) Motor vehicles have been subject to sales tax since 1930. The rate of tax applicable to motor vehicles has changed in line with the rates applicable to other goods in the past 67 years. Given the long time span and the number of changes that have occurred the exact details of all the rate changes that have occurred since 1930 are not readily available. (5) Agencies in my portfolio do not often compile forecasts of sales tax revenue to be collected or foregone from individual products. Historical experience is that when such forecasts are compiled and published, it is usually in the context of a budget measure to newly impose sales tax on a product. No such tax measures will apply during this Parliament, as the Government is committed not to introduce new taxes. However, it may be of assistance to the honourable member to note that the latest edition of the Australian Taxation Office publication `Taxation Statistics' records that $2547 million in sales tax was collected in 1995-96 from businesses whose major taxable sales were in the field of motor cars and commercial vehicles. | Australia | 1,998 |
Treasurer Mr Costello —The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: 0 (1) In the 1996-97 Budget, the Government announced that it intended to proceed with an announcement by the previous Government and introduce legislation to counter tax avoidance through the use of tax-exempt bodies distributing funds offshore. It also undertook to release an exposure draft of the legislation with a view to obtaining submissions from interested parties. The exposure draft was released on 20 February 1997 and some 78 formal submissions were received. In addition many telephone calls were received and a number of meetings held. Many of the submissions expressed support for the Government's measures to counter tax avoidance, but some expressed concern about some possible unintended effects on bona fide bodies. The Government has carefully considered all of the representations received and where the integrity of the measures could still be maintained, incorporated many of the suggestions made in the Bill introduced into the Parliament and in the amendment moved by the Government in the Parliament. (2) It is expected that the vast majority of tax exempt organisations that have a physical presence in Australia will be unaffected by the measures. Those charitable or religious institution that have a physical presence in Australia but incur their expenditure and pursue their objects principally outside Australia will lose the general tax exemption previously available. However, in these circumstances, it will still be possible for the institutions to retain their tax exempt status if the Parliament prescribes the particular institution in the Income Tax Regulations.
(3) The estimated impact of these measures is a gain to the revenue of $30 million per annum from 1997-98. (4) Extensive public consultation has already taken place on the legislation and the Government made amendments to the draft bill to remove unintended consequences. However the ATO will continue to monitor the operation of the legislation to ensure it continues to operate in the manner intended. | Australia | 1,998 |
Workplace Relations and Small Business Mr Reith —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 0 (1) The major Australian container ports are Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Fremantle, Burnie and Adelaide. (2) (a) The stevedoring workforce is employed on a company basis and is a matter for each individual company. There is no central registry from which total numbers can be drawn on a port-by-port basis. However, the nation-wide stevedoring workforce has fallen from 8,872 in late 1989 to around 4,000 today. There are many issues relating to inefficient work practices that impact on the cost of using Australia's waterfront and therefore on the competitiveness of Australian exporters. Because of the long term monopoly labour supply controlled by the Maritime Union of Australia, it is not clear that manning requirements in container stevedoring operations are determined on the basis of workload and working arrangements optimised by the needs of the enterprise. The aim of the Government's industrial relations framework and waterfront reform objectives is to give stevedoring operators the opportunity to work on a more commercial footing. This extends to giving operators greater control over manning levels and the size of their workforce irrespective of whether employees are or are not members of the MUA. (b) This information is not available on a consistent and uniform basis. (c) Container terminal charges are a commercial matter for each stevedoring company in each port. Reports previously published by the former Prices Surveillance Authority (PSA) provided an average national figure for revenue per twenty-foot equivalent unit (TEU) across all major container ports. These figures ranged from $254 per TEU in 1990 to $193 per TEU in 1993 and a preliminary estimate of $203 per TEU in 1996. The Bureau of
Transport and Communications Economics' (BTCE) in its latest (September 1997) Waterline publication uses a national average of $188 per TEU, based on PSA figures and industry sources, while noting that charges may vary between ports and that detailed data for individual ports is not publicly available. Despite the decrease in the national average revenue per TEU figure indicated here, evidence suggests stevedoring costs at Australian ports remain higher than at comparable overseas ports. The cost of using port facilities has a serious impact on trade competitiveness as costs must be fully included in the price of exported products.
The cost of imported goods also reflects stevedoring and other transport costs and so impacts on the standard of living of Australian consumers. (d) I presume that the question is referring to ship turnaround times. Figures published by the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics' (BTCE) in its Waterline publication show the average turnaround times for container vessels 15,000—20,000 grt presented below. Simplistic comparisons between ports are not appropriate as each port uses a different set of parameters to measure turnaround time. Turnaround time is also affected by the average container exchange at each port. Figures for the port of Burnie are unavailable. Ship turnaround times, major Australian container ports, 1993-97 Hours 19931994199419951995199619961997PortJan-JunJul-DecJan-JunJul-DecJan-JunJul-DecJan-JunMelbourne44.542.347.039.242.735.838.039.0Sydney42.040.053.448.247.939.041.036.1Brisbane28.027.629.230.733.726.831.630.3Fremantle28.027.029.529.732.928.426.822.7Adelaide27.524.524.228.026.120.218.517.0 Source: Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics' Waterline publication, various issues. Figures are for median turnaround times in hours. On the basis of available information, the Government has set a target average container terminal crane rate of 25 containers per hour as a basis for on-going improvement, compared to the five-port average of 18.3 for the September quarter 1997 published in Waterline. An improvement in the crane rate of the magnitude of the Government's target rate would be expected to have a significant impact on reducing ship turnaround times, cargo transit times and improving reliability, key factors affecting the competitiveness of Australian exports. (e) Crane rates in units of container lifts per hour generally provide the best indication of waterfront performance for container stevedoring and are the ones used by industry. However these figures are not available for Australian ports prior to 1995. The following tables show quarterly crane rates for major Australian container ports in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) per hour, March 1990—June 1997. Figures for the port of Burnie are unavailable. Quarterly container terminal crane rates, major mainland Australian ports, March 1990-June 1997 TEUs per hour QuarterMar-90Jun-90Sep-90Dec-90Mar-91Jun-91Sep-91Dec-91Mar-92Jun-92Sep-92Dec-92PortMelbourne13.614.414.614.715.014.115.714.816.718.119.4naSydney13.013.513.214.814.214.115.517.518.619.820.9na Brisbane12.913.612.012.313.313.414.314.917.018.019.8naFremantle14.513.515.515.615.515.815.016.421.018.620.4naAdelaide17.8(17.1)(16.2)17.116.117.717.018.019.818.719.1naFive ports13.514.013.914.514.614.315.415.918.018.720.1na QuarterMar-93Jun-93Sep-93Dec-93Mar-94Jun-94Sep-94Dec-94Mar-95Jun-95Sep-95Dec-95PortMelbournenana22.318.919.719.118.520.220.819.419.819.6Sydneynana19.820.416.418.516.916.018.918.119.318.5Brisbanenana21.221.120.420.820.318.918.418.018.618.9Fremantlenana19.019.819.819.321.622.920.219.319.519.2Adelaidenana19.820.920.619.119.820.221.520.220.921.4Five portsnana20.919.918.819.218.518.919.918.919.519.2 QuarterMar-96Jun-96Sep-96Dec-96Mar-97Jun-97PortMelbourne20.522.324.522.423.623.5Sydney19.519.920.319.618.7p22.6pBrisbane20.019.920.620.620.020.5Fremantle21.223.420.821.523.322.9Adelaide21.521.522.724.024.626.0Five ports20.321.322.321.221.5p22.8p Source: BTCE's Waterline September 1997 Issue Numbers 2, 3 and 12. ( ): approximate, calculated from the five port average. p: provisional na: not available Container terminal productivity on Australia's waterfront is well below international best practice. The Government's strong view is that, on the basis of information available, a reasonable, achievable target is a five-port average crane rate of 25 containers per hour, which equates to nearly 30 TEUs per hour. This figure, once achieved, should serve as the basis for on-going improvement. | Australia | 1,998 |
Treasurer Mr Costello —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: 0 (1) The Australian standard cheque clearing cycle is currently five days. Compared to similar countries, this is one of the longest times for funds from a cheque deposit to become available.
Nevertheless, care must be taken in making such comparisons. In Australia, the availability of funds is the same for all cheques, irrespective of where in Australia they are presented, while in many countries non-local cheques can take a very long time to clear. Australian banks pay interest from the day a cheque is presented (even though the funds may not be withdrawn), while in some other countries interest is paid only once cleared funds become available. However, the Final Report of the Financial System Inquiry (the Wallis Report) noted that industry arrangements for processing and clearing have constrained the efficiency of cheque clearing, as they fail to capture the scale economies available through more centralised processing. Centralised processing provides a further means of reducing cheque processing costs and cheque clearing times. However, banks have been reluctant to date to adopt centralised processing on a widespread scale, despite the availability of third party processing capacity. (2) The Reserve Bank has been pressing the Australian Payments Clearing Association (APCA), whose membership includes banks, building societies and credit unions, to reduce cheque clearing times by speeding up its project to replace physical transfers of cheques by electronic systems. APCA has developed new standards and procedures for the electronic presentment and dishonour of cheques with a view to shortening the time it takes to clear a cheque. APCA's CEO has said that this will allow financial institutions to decide three days after deposit whether to provide clear funds. APCA recently announced a timetable for the progressive conversion of cheque exchanges to the new procedures by the end of April 1999. The Government and the Reserve Bank will be watching closely to see that financial institutions take advantage of these systems developments to reduce cheque clearing times and improve customer service in this respect. | Australia | 1,998 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.