1998-03-093816REPS71101998-03-09Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports71171112:31:00711Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Speaker, I present the Report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Venezuela and the United States of America 5-22 July 1997 . In so doing, I will briefly offer a few points about the delegation and say at the outset that I believe that the success of the delegation was certainly due to the leader, the previous Speaker, the Hon. Bob Halverson. I thank him for his very hard work and, most particularly, for the very honest way in which the delegation was conducted and proceeded. I particularly express appreciation to my colleagues who went on the trip.The delegation received very comprehensive oral and written briefings prior to leaving Australia from officers of the Parliamentary Research Service, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Austrade. The assistance provided by those people is certainly acknowledged with thanks. In fact, I will mention Mr Frank Frost from the Parliamentary Research Service; Ms Clare Bergin, Ms Alison Burrows, Mr Richard Ryan and Ms Sarah Roberts from Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; and Alex Olah from Austrade.The delegation, I feel sure, would also like to give thanks to the Australian missions in Caracas and Washington for the excellent support provided prior to and during the visits. The excellent work that was performed by the mission in Caracas has resulted, I believe, in Australia gaining particular kudos in Venezuela. The officers are mentioned in the report, but I give thanks particularly to His Excellency Mr Roger Frankel, Ambassador to Venezuela; to Mr Ben Burdon, his Second Secretary handling the political area—a wonderful, bright young man; and to Mr Aquiles Sanchez, Business Relations Director. I believe a lot of Australia's acceptance in Venezuela is owed in no small measure to the work that those people are doing on our behalf in the embassy. The delegation appreciated the very warm welcome and the hospitality extended to us by the President and Vice-President of the Congress of Venezuela. We also had meetings with the First Vice-President of the Senate and the President of the Venezuela-Australia Parliamentary Friendship Group. We met representatives from the Venezuelan Congress. We were very kindly assisted by the police. I believe they were invaluable in making the visit the success that it was.The Venezuelans are now very keen to promote Australia as a development model considering the similarity of their mineral resource base to that of Australia. There is a very strong express desire to attract Australian investment and commercial interests, particularly in mining and industry areas where we are at the forefront in technology and know-how. Also, I think the timing of our visit to Venezuela was very significant as the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, or BHP, has combined with a very large Venezuelan company, Sivensa, in a joint venture to build a $650 million hot briquetted iron manufacturing plant in Puerto Ordaz. We had the opportunity to visit that plant and see it in operation.Mr Speaker, the first recommendation in the report that has been tabled is:The Parliament of Australia should encourage and support regular visits between the Parliaments of Venezuela and Australia, and other exchanges between the two bodies.I hope the government takes note of that recommendation because I think the friendships we have built are very important, as are the expertise that was exchanged and the fact that the Venezuelans are so keen to get on with changing their country. It can only be to the advantage of Venezuela and Australia if those friendships continue to be encouraged.Economically, at this stage, Venezuela is still going through a very hard time. But, because it has such abundant natural resources, I believe that the type of government structure they have there now and the commitment that they have will certainly help them to achieve. The mineral reserves in Venezuela and the shared geological structures of Australia and Venezuela can provide very significant trade and investment opportunities for Australia, particularly in the mining sector. That was certainly brought home to the delegation. That is why we were very keen, in recommendation 2 of the report, to request the Australian government to:. . . capitalise on the tremendous potential for investment in Venezuela by adopting appropriate policies and maintaining appropriate levels of representation in Venezuela to further Australia's commercial and business interests.I think that is very important.Before I go to the American part of our visit, I will touch on a project which helps educate young children that has been extended—with very limited financial output—through our embassy in Venezuela. As a delegation, we had an opportunity to visit a social development project, as the embassy calls it, which is sponsored by our embassy and, I think, the Canadian embassy. The project provides education for the children of persons living in Caracas who do not have citizen identity cards. These children, therefore, do not qualify for a state education. If it were not for this money, these children would not receive any education. The faces of those children when we met them, and the opportunity to see how proud they are to be starting to put words together and to be identifying words, I think is a compliment to our embassy. I believe they are making a very humane and social contact with people who are less privileged than ourselves.When we left Venezuela—and, as I said, it was a very extensive visit in a very limited time—we went on to the United States. I am particularly pleased with the cooperation that was given to the delegation in the United States. It provided us with an opportunity to review and evaluate recent directions, particularly in US domestic and foreign policies, as President Clinton had just begun his second term. The opportunity was also taken by us to assess Australia's wide ranging bilateral relationship, particularly the examination of opportunities to strengthen our trade positions. I can assure you that we need to. We have brought down a recommendation in this report which states:The Australian Government should pursue the prospect of a `Pacific Charter' as suggested by the Honourable Benjamin Gilman, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, US Congress.We certainly had many long and involved meetings with a number of congressmen, as mentioned in the report. I think it is important that we look at that.During that period of time in Washington the delegation also received information on the possibility of Australia gaining fast-track authority to improve Australia's balance of trade situation by gaining better access for certain commodities. Subject to Congress approval of the policy, Australia, I believe, should pursue the possibility of gaining fast-track approval from the President of the United States for access to free trade in certain commodities. That is how recommendation 4 came about. As it states, subject to Congress approval of the policy, we should continue to pursue the fast tracking for Australia to have access to free trade in certain commodities.The delegation also went to New York which I had requested we at least visit to see what was happening with the zero tolerance policy of the New York Police Department. We were very impressed with what has occurred in New York City. On behalf of the delegation, I would particularly like to thank the Police Commissioner, Howard Safir, and from the New York Police Department, the deputy inspectors and the commanding officer, and the District Attorney of New York.There has been a reduction in New York in all major crimes over the past four years and something like a 60 per cent decrease in murders. When Mr Safir was questioned as to how this turnaround came about, he said that it first began from the writing of a book from two New York academics, titled Broken Window. The major theme of the book that they carried through in New York was that non-action against lower level crimes such as graffiti and littering gave a message or signal that other crimes would then be tolerated. That is how zero tolerance came into being in New York.I think the areas covered in the report speak volumes about what has been able to be done in a city which recently had the largest number of crimes of the 200 cities in America and has now come down to the least. I think that is a clear message that what they have put into practice is certainly working. What we have done in our report is request that we pursue that at a Commonwealth level and perhaps look at convincing—I know it is a state matter—some of our state colleagues to start looking at some of the strategies that have been put in place that have proven to be very effective.We were briefed by the Police Commissioner about the changes that have occurred to the structure of their police force. In the limited time left to me I would like to put some details on the record. They have now changed all the requirements for the employment of police officers in New York. Now they have to be at least a minimum of 22 years of age. They have to have at least 60 college credits or two years military service. The interesting part of that is that of the 50,000 applicants each year who sit for the exams to join the police force, only 1,500 are accepted. Again, it was a very interesting visit. I believe much can be gained for Australia from this particular visit.12:41:00713Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I begin by endorsing the comments of the honourable member for Prospect (Mrs Crosio), who was a most gracious fellow traveller on our trip to Venezuela and the United States. I thank her for introducing the report into the House in the absence of the former Speaker, the honourable member for Casey (Mr Halverson). I would like to make a few comments in the very brief time that has been allocated to this debate on the report of the parliamentary delegation to Venezuela and the USA, which went from 5 to 22 July last year.The objectives of the delegation were fivefold. The first objective was to review the bilateral relationship with particular reference to any issues that may provide opportunities to improve Australia's balance of trade situation with the United States. I intend to concentrate on the United States because I only have a few minutes to speak today. I am grateful that the member for Prospect covered both Venezuela and the United States.Our second aim was to assess the direction of policies towards the Asia-Pacific region, including relations with a number of countries and including security and defence policies. We were also to: assess the economic situation in the US with reference to control of the budget deficit and with the prospects for economic growth; examine the strategies employed by the New York Police Department to reduce crime significantly; and, finally, assess the methods used by the US Congress to deliver members' entitlements.In my opinion, the two most important issues that we dealt with were, firstly, the trade relationship between Australia and the United States and, secondly, the United States' interest in the Asia-Pacific region and the growing importance of that region in world affairs. Australia has a $13 billion trade imbalance with the United States, which means that that is a very important subject, and we spent a great deal of time talking to congressmen and senators with respect to that issue.One of the reasons why we have this trade imbalance is that we have a significant purchase of civilian aircraft and military equipment from the United States. So it is explainable but, at the same time, it is unsatisfactory. We discovered on our trip that we are making some inroads through wine exports. As a South Australian, I am pleased to say that wine exports to the US went up by 42 per cent in the last year. South Australia produces 70 per cent of Australia's exports of wine and 50 per cent of all of the production of wine in Australia, and as a South Australian I am very pleased that is happening. We are also increasing our trade in manganese metal, and increasing trade in the film industry through some of the more celebrated films of the last 12 months.The delegation was lucky to have meetings with people of the stature of the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, the Hon. Ben Gilman; the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, the Hon. Philip Crane; the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific, the Hon. Craig Thomas; as well as Ford Motor Co. executives Dr Martin Zimmerman and Mr Alain Batty. Through those meetings we pushed very strongly the Australian view with respect to agricultural products, the aluminium ship market and the fact that Australian farmers are so badly dealt with through the Monroe Doctrine, which has applied in the United States for many years and which gives enormous preference to the domestic farmers of the United States, and also the Jones Act, which is an act which stops the import into the United States of Australian superflyte ferries. They are two very significant areas that Australia could make inroads into in relation to our trade and balance with the United States.The second most important issue is the United States interest and engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. It became very clear to the delegation that it was absolutely vital that the United States maintains a defence and economic interest in not only the North Asian region but also South-East Asia because of the balance and the stability that that gives our region. In discussions with other members of the Congress already referred to plus Mr Thomas Foley, the former Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Bob Dole, who was the presidential candidate for the Republican Party in 1996, we teased out some of the issues in relation to the United States engagement in Asia.One of the things that became very clear was that, through some of the hot spots like the South China Sea, the Paracel and Spratly Islands and the Asian financial crisis, Australia had a large stake in ensuring that the United States maintains its military interest and its economic interest in the East Asian region. In the last few months with the Asian financial crisis we have seen that it is very important that the United States takes a greater interest in Indonesia. It became very clear through our discussions that there is only a very specific group of people—(Time expired)Committees71471471412:46:00714Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—On behalf of the Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, I present the report of the committee entitled Examination of the annual report for 1996-97 of the National Crime Authority.Ordered that the report be printed.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I am pleased to be able to say in the context of tabling this report that the committee has been working assiduously in fulfilling its legislative responsibilities, which are spelt out in section 55(1)(c) of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, which requires the committee to examine each annual report of the authority and report to the parliament on any matter appearing in or arising out of any such report. I would like, in that context, both to thank the committee for the hard work that it continues to do and, I think appropriately, to pay some tribute to the authority as it is presently constituted for the cooperation which it gives to the committee and particularly to the Chairman, Mr Broome, and the member of the authority, Mr Melick, for the forthcoming way in which they deal with matters that are put to them by the committee.The degree of cooperation the committee receives at the moment is probably the best level of cooperation that any parliamentary committee on the National Crime Authority has received in the past in its working relationship with the authority. There have been times in the early days when relations between the committee and the authority were strained, but today I think I can say quite unequivocally that relations are good. Having said that, I would not like to give members or indeed the broader public the impression that the joint parliamentary committee is in some respect a rubber stamp of the National Crime Authority or that it has some cosy relationship with the authority.In fact, the contrary is true. We have a good, solid working relationship based on mutual respect and, as I say, a degree of cooperation which, in the end, allows us as a parliamentary committee to fulfil our responsibilities properly and which also enhances the work of the authority, because the sorts of questions that we are able to ask in our dealings with the authority give them, quite correctly, the impression that this particular committee is serious about the work that it does. I see my friend the Deputy Chairman of the committee, the member for Maribyrnong (Mr Sercombe), in the chamber. He will speak shortly. I would like at the beginning of this new parliamentary year to thank him for his cooperation as well.I need to be a little circumspect in the remarks that I make here this afternoon because the committee is completing what has been about an 18-month project of formulating a very detailed evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of the authority. To that end, even today we are working towards finalising that report, which I know is being very much looked forward to by people who are interested in law enforcement in Australia. I can say to the House today that the timetable for our completion of that report and indeed its tabling in this parliament is that we would aim to complete that work in time to table our report in the parliament no later than 30 March.I do not really want to go into great detail in the comments that I make now because it would in some way be seen to pre-empt that report, which, as I say, is going to be a very good one and which the committee is working towards completing at the moment.I would, however, like to say one or two things. I recognise that the time for these comments is limited. What I might do at this stage is not say anything further but allow the Deputy Chairman of the committee to make a few remarks. If there is further time available for consideration of this report, I would like to add to my comments. (Time expired)12:51:00715Sercombe, Bob,MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—The front page of the Melbourne Age this morning quotes the Chief Commissioner of Police in Victoria as saying, somewhat dramatically, that we have lost the drug war. Even allowing for the journalistic licence that subeditors might wish to have sometimes, it nonetheless illustrates a whole range of the issues that the NCA deals with in somewhat more diplomatic language in its report. It certainly deals very dramatically with the need for additional resources for its central role in relation to problems of crime in this society. It also deals with the fundamental need for the National Crime Authority to be working cooperatively with other law enforcement agencies, particularly the AFP.Even the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) acknowledges the need for significantly increased resources for law enforcement. On 17 February, he gave a speech at the Asian regional conference of Interpol in which he said:Last year, my Government commissioned a study by the accountants Deloittes to look at AFP resource management practices. Their report makes clear that there is a need for additional funds in the short term . . . They are the Prime Minister's own words. Yet as we look at the important strategic partnerships the NCA has, we see a very dim picture indeed. For example, on 5 November last year, the Deputy Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police wrote to the NCA in relation to the secondment of AFP officers to the NCA. It was made abundantly clear that the AFP's critical staffing levels in eastern and southern regions preclude any additional resources to the NCA coming from those regions for the very important tasks with which the NCA relies on the AFP for assistance. In the reply that the General Manager of Operations of the NCA sent back to the Deputy Commissioner, he made the following very pertinent remark:I hope that in the not too distant future, the NCA and the AFP are funded to a level sufficient to accommodate joint work across the country.That is a very stinging criticism, I believe, of this government's failure to provide the resources that are needed if people are serious about attacking crime in this society. In fact, the AFP, as the principal strategic partner of the NCA, is in a quite bizarre financial position.An internal minute dated 28 January 1998 prepared in the AFP says that, of the $18.1 million budget shortfall for this current year, half is to be made up by a delay in payment of invoices and credit card accounts. What a shameful way to run the principal law enforcement agency of the Commonwealth. The internal minute says:Naturally management of deferred expenditure should occur in consultation with suppliers.I am sure trade creditors throughout the country will be delighted that the Commonwealth's largest law enforcement body is actually going to consult them about deferring its expenditure. It goes on to say:Expenditure placed on the Australian Government Credit Card . . . after the close of business on 21 May 1998 will not appear on an American Express statement requiring payment this financial year.What a disgraceful way for the government to run the affairs of fundamental law enforcement agencies like the Australian Federal Police that are central to the operations of the NCA. It really is an absolute sham.The consultant's report by Deloittes, to which the Prime Minister referred in his speech to Interpol, makes it abundantly clear that, indeed, the Prime Minister is right: there are short-term financial problems of some significance for law enforcement in this country. But they are nothing compared with the problems that are going to arise by the year 2000. In the year 2000, there will be a range of massive demands on law enforcement in this country, the Olympic Games not being the least. There will be the Paralympics, the Pacrim Conference, the World Economic Forum and the centenary of Federation.In that year, however, 85 per cent of AFP members who accepted fixed term appointments in 1990 have those appointments expire on 1 July. If they choose not to accept reappointment, they become eligible for their superannuation payouts with dramatic consequences for the Commonwealth law enforcement budget. So we have lip service from the government about the importance of resources and we have lip service from the government about the importance of proper coordination and cooperation between Commonwealth law enforcement agencies, but nothing of satisfaction has been done. (Time expired)12:56:00716Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—by leave—I was hoping that the member for Moore (Mr Filing) would contri bute to the debate, but I understand he has indicated that he does not intend to. So I would like to take the opportunity to make a few more remarks in the time that has been allocated for consideration of this NCA committee report by the parliament.I am a little disappointed, although I understand, that the member for Maribyrnong (Mr Sercombe) would take the opportunity for some political point scoring, particularly in view of the kind remarks I made about him earlier and about the contribution he makes to the committee. I do not resile from those remarks for a moment, but I do need to say that I am as concerned as he—and I think every member of this parliament and everyone in the nation would be—that law enforcement authorities are adequately funded for their tasks.I did notice these remarks by Commissioner Comrie in this morning's Age: `We've lost drug war'. The police commissioner is quite entitled to come to that view. I do not think we have lost the drug war. There are concerns that we are not winning the drug war, but that does not necessarily mean we have lost it or, in other words, that we should concede defeat. I think it means that the war is still going and that we need to prosecute that war with all of the resources and with all of the energy that we have available to us.As I said earlier, the NCA joint committee is completing a detailed evaluation of the NCA's activities over the last 10 years or so, and that report will be brought down in this parliament on 30 March, I hope. The question of resources will be looked at in the context of that report, and the member for Maribyrnong will make, I am sure, a very good contribution to the committee's consideration of that report.The committee is a very representative committee because it has not only representatives of the two major parties but also the Independent member for Moore; Senator Stott Despoja, the Deputy Leader of the Democrats; and a representative of the National Party. In many respects, this particular committee, with both senators and members of all parties, including Independents, is a very representative committee. In the end, I think the com mittee will be fairly unanimous in the sorts of recommendations it brings down.The question of resources is an important one. The Australian people expect the Commonwealth government and the state governments to be taking this so-called `war' against drugs very seriously. I think the contribution this committee report makes towards achieving that will be very important.The other thing I should say is that I do not resile from using the word `war' against drugs. There are people who are the so-called promoters of drug law reform, but we need to understand that, when people talk about drug law reform, they are mostly talking about softer laws on drugs, not harder laws. I do not resile for one moment from using the word `war', because it is a war that we are fighting against drugs in this country. It is as much a war as a war would be if an external aggressor started to attack our nation. People who push, traffic in and sell drugs to our kids are undermining the fundamental liberties and freedoms which we enjoy in our country as much as an enemy that attacked our shores in some other way. So it is a war and it is a war that we must win. More importantly, I am yet to be convinced that it is a war that we cannot win.The resourcing of law enforcement agencies—including the National Crime Authority—is an important element of winning that war. I believe, along with the member for Maribyrnong, my committee and every member in this House, that if our law enforcement agencies are to be effective, they have to be adequately resourced. As I said, the committee will comment in detail on the NCA and its resources in the report that it brings down.Let us not think we can get a result cheaply, because people who are trafficking drugs and importing drugs into this country are highly motivated, highly organised and highly efficient—they have all the latest technology. If we are to be effective in combating it, the law enforcement agencies which are charged with the task of stopping them, preventing them, frustrating them—however you want to put it—must be equally capable of doing the task. After my recent visit to the United States where I spent some more time with the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration, I am more convinced than ever of the need for law enforcement agencies to have adequate resources to do the job.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired.717Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.71771713:02:00717Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, I present the report of the committee entitled Review of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission annual report 1996-97 , together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—This is the fourth report of the committee in this parliament, and I am pleased to say that again it is a unanimous report. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is Australia's major competition watchdog. Given the commission's significant powers, which directly impact on the commercial operations of business in almost every market, and its role in consumer protection matters, the ACCC must be transparent and accountable, and be seen to be so.One very public and important way in which this transparency is being achieved is through the committee's regular review of the ACCC's annual reports. In this report, as in its first review on the ACCC last year, the committee focused on merger issues. However, the matters raised in this context also reflect wider concerns with the ACCC's actions.While business generally accept the concept of the Trade Practices Act and the competition policy agenda, they and others have been critical of the way in which the ACCC conducts itself, particularly in relation to mergers. A number of significant concerns are outlined in this report. To address those concerns, the committee has: suggested even greater transparency in the commission's operations, particularly section 87B undertakings; supported the need for guidelines on the ACCC's use of information from the private sector in trade practices cases; and suggested that the ACCC publicise its failures as well as its successes.A major issue that emerged during the review was whether it was appropriate for the ACCC to accept legal resources from Optus—which was a potential beneficiary of the legal action—in the Foxtel-Australis media merger case. The Australian Government Solicitor is retained by the ACCC to provide legal services. Evidence provided by both the ACCC and the AGS revealed that the AGS had added to its legal resources on the Foxtel-Australis media merger case two solicitors with specialist telecommunications skills on a secondment from Gilbert and Tobin solicitors. This firm of solicitors normally acts for Optus. Further, the seconded solicitors would be paid by the AGS at AGS salary rates with their salaries topped up by Optus to their current salaries.But then it emerged that, while the AGS would pay Gilbert and Tobin for the two solicitors at AGS salary rates of the order of $250 per day, the AGS was charging the ACCC at rates of the order of $250 per hour. This would allow the AGS to make a substantial profit out of the ACCC. The ACCC stressed that it made the decision to oppose the merger prior to any issues about the secondment arising. The committee accepted that, under the circumstances, the AGS and the ACCC appeared to have few alternatives to Gilbert and Tobin solicitors with appropriate telecommunications expertise and had no further information to suggest the engagement was unlawful. However, the committee be lieves it was highly inappropriate for the AGS to agree to allow Optus to top-up the fees paid to the solicitors from Gilbert and Tobin. The committee stated, and the AGS agreed, that one of the very pillars of our legal institution in Australia is that not only has justice got to be done, it also has to be seen to be done.Probably the most surprising aspects of the fee arrangements were the claims at times by the AGS and the ACCC of the lack of knowledge of the existence and detail of the arrangement and the varying estimates of the profit that the AGS was making—somewhere between $8,000 and $40,000, depending on the figures used. Following the publicity surrounding the December hearing, the AGS backed down on the fee arrangements.Accordingly, the committee has made a recommendation on the need for guidelines on the ACCC's future use of information from the private sector in trade practices cases. It has also recommended that the Australian National Audit Office review the AGS's financial management and internal reporting systems. Other important matters addressed by the committee were the ACCC's involvement in the compliance work related to section 87B undertakings, a perception of an ACCC conflict of interest with Optus and the restrictions on the 131—(Time expired)13:07:00718Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—As the member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) has correctly said, the ACCC has significant powers which directly impact, for example, on the commercial operations of businesses in almost every market in the country. The ACCC additionally has significant consumer protection powers. It is for these reasons that its operations must be accountable and, as the member for Wannon has again said, they also must be transparent. An important way to put the ACCC's activities under the scrutiny of the public eye is through the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration. The report that the committee has just completed, tabled by the chairman, the member for Wannon, is a key part of that scrutiny.As noted in the FIPA review of the ACCC's annual report, a number of areas of concern have been raised. Some say that the ACCC has too much power and influence, which indeed it does. The ACCC has significant powers which directly impact upon the commercial operations of businesses in almost every market. We are pleased to note that the ACCC does recognise that it has significant powers and influence and that the Trade Practices Act is, in its own right, a particularly powerful wall. Certainly, businesses which are seen to have a monopoly may well complain about the ACCC's seemingly ever expanding and powerful role, but while those businesses represent a particular point of view it would be easy, for that reason, to ignore them as being a sectional interest group.It is important that their concerns are listened to, perhaps even embraced, and that the Australian people are told why these decisions have been made. The committee's report states:While businesses may seek to protect their interest against the ACCC's decisions, over a long period of time they and others have made significant criticisms of the decisions and operations of the ACCC and its predecessor bodies. These days rarely does a week, on occasions a day, go by without some concerns about the ACCC being raised in the media. This is an important avenue of transparency of the ACCC's activities.The report also notes that there is a recurring pattern of criticism surrounding some of the areas of the ACCC's activities. As it expands its role, there are frictions occurring between certain sections, particularly in the area of mergers. While in the past the ACCC may not have given much attention to such concerns, these concerns are becoming harder and harder for the ACCC to overlook. It is important that it recognises that these concerns exist. The committee must continue to monitor these reactions to the ACCC's activities.The ACCC will perhaps have some change in its role as a result of the reforms proposed under the Wallis report. In relation to consumer protection in the financial services sector, the ACCC is now one of the only government bodies able to scrutinise the way that the consumer is being treated by both financial institutions and intermediaries. This is because the ACCC was one of the very few government departments not to face signifi cant budget cutbacks under the Howard government.To that end, I am concerned that the consumer has been disadvantaged by the government's cutbacks to the other financial regulators, namely, the ASC and the ISC. Under the Wallis reforms the ACCC will hand over the financial sector consumer protection role to the new Australian Corporations and Financial Services Commission. Unless the ACFSC is funded properly, it will not be able to fulfil its consumer protection role. If this were to occur, I and many others will have even more concerns about consumer protection in the financial services area.The ACCC is, as the member for Wannon has said, our major competition watchdog. We are here to ensure that it remains accountable to the people it is there to serve—that is, the Australian people. I believe that the FIPA committee and its report is a significant part of the ongoing scrutiny of the ACCC.13:12:00719Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—by leave—In winding up, I would like to add that other matters that have been addressed by the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration were the ACCC's involvement in compliance work related to section 87B undertakings, a perception of the ACCC conflict of interest with Optus and with the restrictions of the use of the 131 008 mobile phone access and the extent to which benefits of competition reform are flowing through to rural and regional areas. The committee's task has been greatly facilitated by the cooperation and assistance provided by the ACCC and the AGS and by the contributions from the businesses who made submissions and provided evidence at an informal briefing, particularly Santos Ltd.In conclusion, I would like to thank all the members of the committee—particularly the member for Isaacs (Mr Wilton), the deputy chairman of the committee—for their hard work on the inquiry and the report and to express the committee's appreciation to the inquiry secretary, Bev Forbes, the committee secretary, Chris Paterson, and Belynda Zolotto for their excellent and professional report. Belatedly, I commend the report to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wannon wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?720Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. It being 1.15 p.m., in accordance with standing orders 102C, the time for consideration of committee and delegation reports has concluded.Private Members' Business72072013:16:00720McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move:That this House:(1) notes that the withdrawal of the operational subsidy to community based child care centres has caused a significant detrimental impact including:(a) the need for child care centres to increase fees between 11 and 15 per cent per week;(b) causing a number of families to reduce their hours of child care or leave the child care service altogether; and(c) causing child care centres to (i) reduce administration hours, (ii) reduce staff or replace staff with lower qualified staff, (iii) curtail services to infants such as nappy services, (iv) either withdraw or reduce the quality of meals and drinks provided to children, (v) reduce the amount of spending on equipment and materials and (vi) reduce the extent of building and outdoor maintenance;(2) calls on the Minister for Family Services to refer issues relating to the withdrawal of the operational subsidies to the appropriate House of Representatives committee with such terms of reference to include investigation of the impact of the loss of operational funding on community based long day care centres and families who use that service;(3) further calls on the Minister for Family Services to increase the child care assistance ceiling for child care services to better reflect the actual cost of care; and(4) calls on the Government to immediately reinstate the $350 million taken from the children's services program in 1997-98 so that high quality affordable child care can be maintained and monitored.We may all recall, in the course of the last election campaign, the photograph of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) sitting in the sandpit surrounded by children. As politicians, we can readily detect his motives for doing that. Before the Prime Minister had his facelift, when he still had bushy eyebrows, one possible motive could have been to appear as a cute little gnome sitting among the children. But we all know the reality. The reality was that the Prime Minister was wanting to convey an image of being concerned about children and child care. If the Prime Minister was a little gnome sitting among the children for the purposes of that photograph, he has since been quite a naughty little gnome because, effectively, he has bent down, grabbed a handful of sand and chucked it in the face of the children and in the faces of the mothers who patronise child-care services.The government has removed some $851 million from the sector over a four-year period. They are not my numbers; they are numbers provided by the Department of Health and Family Services to a Senate estimates committee hearing on 8 October last year. Attacks have occurred in a number of areas, but the focus of my motion today, in particular, is on the removal of the operational subsidy for family based day care centres. These are non-profit centres—their name reflects reality. They are run by the community with the input of parents and often, indeed usually, by local councils.Overnight, on 1 July 1997, about $160 million was stripped away from the community based day care centres by removing the operational subsidy component. The government's rationale for doing so was part of its marketplace philosophy, the so-called free market, allowing the free market forces to prevail. They said, on the one hand, that it was going to encourage the community based day care centres to compete with private centres; on the other hand, they said that it would remove a benefit flowing to the community based day care centres which was not available to the private sector. What has happened is that the playing field has not been evened up; the playing field has been elevated significantly because the community based day care centres have put up their fees and the private centres have come up to match them. So parents across the board are now having to pay higher fees. In addition, the lead that was being set by community based day care centres in terms of quality has been significantly impeded and eroded. They were effectively the standard setters in the sector.In support of that, I refer to a survey which was undertaken by St George Advocates for Children which covers centres not only in my electorate of Barton and in the electorate of Banks and Watson, which are Labor-held electorates, but also in the electorates of Hughes and Cook. They have revealed that removal of the operational subsidy has resulted in increases of between 11 and 15 per cent in these centres. In dollar terms, that is between $16 and $20 a week. On average, the report shows that 104 families have reduced their hours of care due to those increases, 12 families plan to leave the centres, 16 families have already left the centres, most centres have reduced staff, other centres have reduced administration hours, and many plan to replace more qualified staff with less qualified staff.Most centres have restricted or withdrawn their nappy services. A lot have withdrawn meals and drinks. Three services have indicated that they will be reducing their spending on purchases and upgrade of equipment. Maintenance has been severely curtailed. One centre has cut its expenditure on maintenance by some three-quarters. The survey concludes:. . . since the loss of operational subsidy to community based long day care centres . . . the issue of affordability has created a major problem for community based centres and has caused many families to reduce hours of care, to leave the centre and find alternative informal types of care. Informal care is likely to be unregulated and is not required to meet the health, safety and quality standards of regulated care.Those figures are consistent not only with a survey undertaken by the Australian Services Union in Melbourne but also with a survey undertaken by the Council of Social Services in New South Wales which conducted a survey across that state. Alarmingly, many community based care centres are now finding it necessary to get out of the very early naught to two-year-old category where there is a chronic need for services.As the Weekend Australian reported on 28 February, there are a growing number of parents who are withdrawing their children from care altogether. Centres that had a two-year waiting list are now struggling to get enough children to break even. Parents who are strapped for cash because of current economic circumstances are literally having to put their children into backyard centres. We are seeing the phenomenon of warehousing, which has been much criticised in the United States, and it is Australia's future generation that is being warehoused.More and more women are moving from full-time into part-time employment or, indeed, giving up work altogether. That is a chronic loss of talent and productivity for a nation. As family incomes are declining because of one parent coming out of the work force, that itself is placing additional strains on the social security system. In some cases, child care for families is now up to about $9,000 a year—which is exceeding private school fees in many circumstances. Bearing in mind that that commutes to something like $15,000 to $18,000 on a gross level, a woman has to earn $15,000 to $18,000 before she breaks even to make working worth while. This is because of these higher charges that have come about under the government's regime.What is the response of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Newman)? Senator Newman is reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 31 January 1998 as accusing the community sector of becoming `politically motivated'. It is a dangerous animal, isn't it? It is a very dangerous animal: when it is attacked it defends itself. They have every right to defend themselves because this government is trying to impose a form of social engineering to take Australia back to the 1950s. But the traditional family values, 1950s style, simply cannot exist in an era when double-income families are not only the norm but often the necessity. While those on the other side of the House may not need two pay packets, that is increasingly an impossible dream for most Australians. Almost half of the families using community based day care centres have an income of less than $20,000, and only 20 per cent have an income of more than $50,000. There is no question that most families—8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—They will benefit from the GST though, won't they?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—They will benefit a lot when that is added on top won't they, as the member for Hunter says. The facts of the matter are that parents using day care centres are using them because of necessity. As the member for Hunter says, if a GST comes about, there will be an additional hike on top of the existing hike; there will be a multiplier effect. Fundamentally, this government has taken $851 million out of the sector. But when we are talking about a sector, we are talking about individuals. We are talking about children whose opportunities are going to be impeded because child care is a springboard for education.Mothers are the most selfless individuals who exist on the earth and, if we as elected representatives cannot do our bit to give them a hand during these demanding times when they have young children, we are failing dramatically in our responsibility to our electorates. This is a matter of such vital significance to the future of Australia that it needs to be examined by the entire community before irreparable damage is done. I call on all members to support the motion.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:26:00722Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise today in response to the motion from the member for Barton (Mr McClelland). The member for Barton has come into this House today and has accused community based child-care centres of providing poor quality service to many Australian families who use their facilities. Even on face value, it is an absolutely preposterous statement to question the care and service that these centres provide.I remember that late last year the member for Barton came into this House and put a similar motion, only this time he was complaining about outside school hours care. On that occasion—I would just like to refresh your memory—the member for Barton came to the conclusion that, as a result of this government's legislation, young children would be automatically left at home alone, unsupervised for long hours, before and after school care.The member for Barton spoke about mothers and how selfless they are. As a mother I find that the statement that you have made is absolutely outrageous. To think that a parent would leave a child at home unsupervised is just inconceivable. Parents must provide and care for their children's safety. That is the very thing you undertake when you become a parent—to care for their safety and their care. Some months later, here he is again, uninformed about the basis on which these government reforms are taking place. This time he is questioning whether community based child-care centres can provide quality services. I think that child-care centres across Australia will strive to ensure that quality service will continue to be provided.In fact, these child-care centres need to meet certain requirements under the accreditation system. Yes, there is an accreditation system out there. I just might bring it to the member for Barton's attention. The accreditation system deals with aspects of quality improvement, and the accreditation system is centred on 52 principles, which include the interactions among children, staff and parents, the health and safety aspects of the centre, as well as staff development and coordination of programs to suit the needs of children. In determining the system of principles, there is a five-step process which involves registration, self-assessment of those involved in child-care centres, and reviews by experienced child-care practitioners. It is overseen by the National Child Care Accreditation Council which maintains standards in all areas—private and community based.The member for Barton's comments completely disregard accreditation requirements. He disregards the inequalities which previously existed in the child-care sector, and he disregards the fact that for 13 years the Labor Party struggled to come to grips with this issue. There was a huge growth in this sector, and you did absolutely nothing. When debating this very important issue here today, it is very important that we put the facts on the line. That is what it is all about—the facts—isn't it? The growth in this sector over the last 10 years has been enormous. Over the past 21 years, the number of women in the paid work force with dependent children under the age of 15 has actually increased from 44 per cent to 60 per cent.It is important to acknowledge the role of community based child-care centres. It is also worth while to reiterate the point that this was a scheme that was introduced by the McMahon government in 1972—yes, a Liberal government brought this in. It was needed at that time for a particular reason. There have been a lot of changes in the social make-up of this country since then, particularly in relation to the fact that 60 per cent of long day care places are provided by the private sector.The member for Barton today spoke about women's issues, about how important motherhood is and about the wonderful role that mothers have in the community. One of the other issues that the member for Barton spoke about today was women going from full-time work to part-time work. I wish to add my comment that it is one of the best things that has happened to the workplace environment. Women now can balance their lives, family and work commitments.I was one of those women. I worked in full-time positions and then I worked in part-time positions when my children were younger. Women go through different life cycles and it is important that they balance those needs. There are people on our side of politics who do have to rely on two pay packets. I was one of those women as well. To say that we do not have to rely on two pay packets is an absolutely outrageous statement. It is tough. Families do have to work—both partners have to work—in this current environment.However, this government has allocated $4.9 billion to the sector over four years. I do not know where you got your figures from, but let me state to you that this government has allocated $1.2 billion this year—an increase of 18 per cent since Labor's last year in office—to this sector. This government has committed to an extra 83,000 places over four years. And why did we need to make these reforms? We needed to clean up the terrible mess that the previous government left us. It is hypocritical of the member for Barton to come in here and lecture us on something that has been a chronic problem for 13 years.There was no formal planning in the industry. Members of the opposition know as well as I do that there was no logical system or framework. Speaking as the mother of two children, I found the system absolutely incomprehensible. I could not understand it at all. There was an oversupply in many areas; there was an undersupply in others. I was on endless waiting lists trying to get my children into child-care centres near my home or my place of work. I had to drive from one end of town to the other to get my children in an adequate child-care centre and it drove me absolutely crazy. Now you are telling me that it did not matter that the system kept operating under those conditions. I have to tell you that I did not really care whether they were community based child-care centres or whether they were private child-care centres; I just needed a child-care centre. There was a need for child-care centres to service the demands of the community.The Labor Party's policy is that a lot of these decisions are based on theory. However, theory does not always work in practice. The Labor Party provided the majority of assistance to the community based sector. This coalition government has heeded the concerns of the sector and we have provided far more of a level playing field and far more support to the industry. How can you argue with this government's reform when for many years the industry was unchecked and unbalanced when you were in power? We are talking about an industry that has been crying out for reform for years. The member for Barton would be aware that private operations do not receive operational subsidies and are still able to provide a high quality standard of care and service. In fact, what makes the statements by the member for Barton even more amazing is the fact that the Labor Party and other parties in the Senate have enabled the passage of the legislation.This government's measures will ensure that significant numbers of new places will be located in neighbourhoods and communities where there is high need and high demand. The removal of operational subsidy will remove the imbalance in government subsidies which exists between community based and private centres. The government has also provided additional funding to enable these centres to obtain expert advice to assist them to manage the loss of operational subsidies and to allow them to meet the transitional arrangements.It is important to again highlight six of the principles behind the government's child-care reforms. Firstly, low and middle income families need to be assisted to meet the cost of child care. Secondly, families in like circumstances should be all treated the same, regardless of what type of child care is being used. Thirdly, what the government has done will ensure that assistance for school age children will be the same, regardless of what service families choose to use. Whether it is family day care, long day care centres or outside school care centres, it is important for these changes to be followed through. Parents' needs and individual requirements will be able to be dealt with in a much more flexible way. Fourthly, what the government has done will also provide extra resources to assist children with disabilities who are in care—let us not forget about those children who have very special needs. The provision of additional support in geographical areas is something that was never tackled by the previous government. Fifthly, the government is determined to provide a high level of child care. It is important that centres providing quality services continue to receive strong support. In addition, $12.3 million has been provided for the needs of these children. The government has introduced better planning to meet areas of greatest need, and better equity by withdrawal of the operational subsidy.The second part of the member for Barton's motion calls for a House of Representatives committee review into government decisions. For the information of the member for Barton, I point out to him that there already is a committee: the Senate Community Affairs References Committee, under the chairmanship of one of your own, actually—Senator Bishop. He is presently calling for submissions for an inquiry into child-care funding. You really should talk to some of your members a bit more often—you might get some wonderful information. (Time expired)13:36:00724Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I am rather intrigued by the approach of the member for Petrie (Ms Gambaro). She got to her feet before defaulting to her government document—her written speech—and attacked the member for Barton (Mr McClelland) for questioning the quality of care provided by the community based sector—something he never did at any time. The Hansard record will show that to be the case. Then she went on a vicious attack on the very sector that she suggested the member for Barton was attacking. She went on to question the quality of care given by the community based sector. Then she expressed her absolute naivety by referring to the member for Barton's previous speech with respect to out of school hours care, questioning his suggestion that kids will be left at home alone.How naive is the member for Petrie? Is she not aware of newspaper articles not long ago which showed that parents were leaving their kids in cars in casino car parks? Does she believe that parents will leave their kids locked in cars in casino car parks, but will not, even when forced by financial pressure, send their kids home to an empty house? How naive is that?The member for Petrie says that this is about competition and lifting the game of the community based sector. The idea of competi tion reflects the ideology that lies behind this scheme—an obsession with the private sector. The member for Petrie referred to the child-care sector as an industry. That is the way they see it; it is just another industry. They get out the micro-economic textbook, apply the graphs—supply and demand and marginal cost curves—and then they say that Cessnock or Singleton should no longer be entitled to a community based child-care centre. How ridiculous, when we are talking about the health and wellbeing of tomorrow's community leaders.Let me tell the member for Petrie about the effect of government cuts to operational subsidies on child-care centres in my electorate. The honourable member must understand that additional impacts stem from these decisions in rural and regional Australia. The member for Barton talked about the existing infrastructure and the need to maintain it because, once it is lost, it is lost forever. Let me give some examples.In Muswellbrook, the abolition of the child-care operational subsidy will cost the centre $33,000 per annum, or 9.4 per cent of its operational budget. In Singleton, it is $42,000 or 11.5 per cent of its operational budget. In Cessnock, it is $40,000 or 9.3 per cent. In Beresfield, it is a whopping $54,000 a year out of the operating budget—a massive cut of 12 per cent. In Kurri Kurri, it is $40,000, and I am not sure about the percentage in terms of its budget; but in Thornton, it is $39,000 or 12 per cent of the operational budget.In Thornton, that means that the centre has been forced to increase its fees not by $20 a week, not by $25 a week—which is probably the average—but by a massive $45 a week. That is $90 a week out of the budget of a family with two children. I have with me 130 letters, which I intend to submit to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) today, from Thornton residents who are desperate to retain that child-care centre. Those people do not have access to public transport. They do not have another child-care centre within cooee.The member for Petrie says that there is going to be new competition, but there is no motive for private sector competition in Thornton because the numbers and the bucks simply are not there. That is why it is necessary for the community sector to come in and fill the void. Government members do not seem to understand how important child care is to families, particularly when both parents are working. They must understand that. (Time expired)13:41:00725Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—Before I address the motion on child care of the member for Barton (Mr McClelland), I would like to remark on some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), on the obsession which this government has with privatisation. When the Labor Party was in government it led the obsession with privatisation, whether it was with Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank—that sacred cow—the AIDC, or the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory. The Labor Party was the leader in it, and so those comments are the ultimate in hypocrisy.I will now return to the subject of this motion, on which the previous speaker did not elucidate very well at all. Our child-care policies are all about fairness. In the Richmond electorate there are more than 50 registered long-term day care centres. At the outset, I point out to members of the House that I have spoken directly with many of the directors and have visited many of those centres. I have spoken to staff and parents in my electorate, including those at the Rainbow Children's Centre in Ballina, Joey's Pouch in Murwillumbah and Pippies Early Childhood Centre in Bogangar, to name a few. They are all providing care and a safe environment for under-5s in which they can grow, play and share.This environment is also provided by private child-care centres and family day care centres. I am in contact with many throughout my electorate, including Ballina Kiddi Care Centre, Rosella's Children's Centre in Murwillumbah, Alstonville Early Learning Centre and some in Bilambil. For many years, community child-care centres have had the benefit of additional government funding in the form of the operational subsidy—the $20 per child—which the private sector clearly has not received. In effect, this has meant that the average person in the street—the taxpayer—has been subsidising this service, which provides funding to less than one-third of child-care centres nationally.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Are you opposing the motion?XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—In my electorate of Richmond—and the member for Hunter might learn something—where more than 2,100 children are in care each weekday, only 10 per cent of places are in centres that are receiving the operational subsidy: 1,747 places in private, community and family care centres, and only 170 through the community based centres.The opposition talks about the impact on low income earners. The seat of Richmond has one of the lowest income levels—under $20,000—of any seats, unlike the affluent seats that those opposite represent. You should look at the demographics. With the withdrawal of the operational subsidy, will this mean that lower income families will not be able to afford quality child care? The operational subsidy was never beneficial to 90 per cent of the children in the Richmond electorate. Low income families have, by choice, sent their children to private day care centres. So good luck to those who wished to send them to community day care centres.I was amazed that the member for Barton talked about the necessity for an inquiry. As the member for Petrie has already mentioned, an inquiry has already been set up. I refer the member for Barton to that inquiry, which is being chaired by an opposition senator, Senator Bishop—not to be confused with former Senator Bishop. Submissions to that inquiry close on 20 March, so I hope you put a submission in to your own people and that they take it as evidence.Let us look at the figures on child care as far as the federal government is concerned. There has been an 18 per cent increase since the Labor Party lost office. Some $1.2 billion has been allocated this year: over $280 million for New South Wales, and over $4.9 billion in the next four years.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Do you oppose the motion? XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—These are important facts that the previous speaker might learn something from: 83,000 places over the next four years. I contrast this to the 13 years of deficit spending by the previous Labor Party government. We got to this mess in the first place through the $10 million deficit which the previous government created. We could have used its approach and put it all on bankcard.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members726726726Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—Last Saturday I attended the 75th annual Blacktown Show. The first Blacktown Show was opened in 1923 by the then New South Wales Premier, Jack Lang. So this show maintains a direct link with the history of the region. The show contains the usual activities such as sideshows, woodchopping, poultry, farm products and cattle exhibits.The New South Wales Minister for Agriculture, Richard Amery, who opened the show, stated that there was still considerable agricultural activity in the Blacktown local government area. In fact, there is farm production valued at $70 million at the farm gate being generated by this region. The local government area of Blacktown also contains one of the largest single dairy farms in New South Wales. I congratulate the show president, Barnie Gallen, and his hardworking committee on an excellent run event. Barnie has been the show president for the past 30 years—a great achievement.Blacktown is one of the fastest growing regions of Australia, with a population of 236,000 hardworking and loyal Australians who have gathered to live there from more than 147 nations. As well as its agricultural history, Blacktown now has a large manufacturing and industrial base established with major industries such as BHP, BTR, Sharp, Sanyo and the very famous engineering firm Transfield all contributing to the industrial and economic development of Australia. (Time expired)727727Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—No doubt members are aware of the great concern in my electorate over the possible construction of Badgerys Creek airport in western Sydney. It has concerned not only western Sydney residents but also inner city residents who suffer from aircraft noise, which is going to be an increasing problem for generations in the future as we try to deal with the demands of this mode of transport.I would like to take this opportunity to expound my idea of a Sydney offshore airport. It would be a mega airport that would replace the capacity of both Mascot airport and Badgerys Creek airport. It would be on pylons outside Botany Bay off the coast of La Perouse. All of the flight paths would be out at sea along the coast of Australia. I always found it ironic that a nation like Australia with 35,000 kilometres of coastline cannot get its airport traffic problems out to sea.It is a concept which I have researched quite thoroughly. I am quite convinced it can be built. The engineering technology is there today in order to build the pylons, the upper platform, the buildings and the departure lounge. They can all be offshore with motorways to connect them to existing Mascot facilities so that a lot of that area can still be used, such as the Qantas buildings and the in-flight catering facilities. (Time expired)727727Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I wonder when the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) will instruct his Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) to stop misleading this House. Question time after question time the minister stands at the dispatch box playing with the truth.EZ5ABBOTTMr Abbott—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt members' statements, but—8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I withdraw.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—He has withdrawn.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—The member for Goldstein misrepresented the facts with respect to the level of schools funding his government is making available to the government sector. In doing so the minister has given new meaning to the phrase: there are lies, damn lies and statistics.He told the House last Thursday that, over the next four years, the government sector will enjoy $2 billion more than it would have done if the former Labor government had still been in office. This is despite information supplied to Senate estimates committees by his own department that, in fact, in real terms funding for government schools will fall by $41 million between the 1995-96 financial year and the 1999-2000 financial year.If the minister's name were Pinocchio, his nose would be three foot long. I seek leave of the House to table a copy of the estimates committee question.Leave not granted.(Time expired)727727Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise briefly this afternoon to record my congratulations to the Central Coast Division of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, which held a very successful fish-n-ships fishing competition in my electorate yesterday, Sunday, 8 March. As honourable members would know, the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol provides an invaluable service to many thousands of people who enjoy our waterways throughout Australia. The coastal patrol is wholly manned by volunteers and does rely solely on its fundraising efforts.This is the second time the fish-n-ships fundraising event has been held on the Central Coast and, hopefully, it will continue as an annual event. This year over $5,000 has been raised from the event and the proceeds will be shared between the Central Coast area health service and the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol. A large crowd of local residents and visitors turned out on the foreshore of the Brisbane Waters to participate in the event. I was pleased to be able to read out a letter of support and congratulations from our Prime Minister, John Howard, on the day.There are some people who were involved in that event who I would like to note: Mr Eddie Wright, the Special Projects Lieutenant; Mr Campbell Ker, the Administration Officer; Mr Ron Sinclair, the PR Officer; Mr Fred Hewitt, the Operations Officer; Ms Joy Smith, President of the Ladies Auxiliary; and Commander Al Morris, Divisional Commander of the Central Coast Division of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, and his wife, Judith. They all did an excellent job in making this day a very successful day. I look forward to it continuing for some time. (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am afraid this is really intended to be time for private members. There being no private member who has risen, I will call the honourable member for Burke. Hang on, the honourable member for Isaacs rose behind you. So I am afraid that, there being a private member rising, I cannot give the call to you. Only if there is no private member rising can I give the call to a shadow minister.728728Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—Mr Speaker, I am happy to defer to the member for Burke.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—I will wait for the next time.YK6Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTON—I rise to draw the attention of the House to what I am sure will again be another successful Youth Week within the electorate of Isaacs over this forthcoming week. Youth Week has now been run by the Chelsea Youth Week Committee since the late 1950s, and I can recall participating myself, as early as 1964, in the Youth Week march on various floats for the various community organisations of which I was a part as a young child.There is no doubt that the activities of the Chelsea Youth Week Committee serve not only to highlight and exhibit the many wonderful pastimes and activities there are for youth to pursue in the Chelsea and broader area but also to afford the community the opportunity to see first hand exactly what is on offer for their children, and their children agree. There is no doubt that Mrs Joyce Davis, who is the Secretary of the Chelsea Youth Week Committee, ought to be commended for her long and untiring work on behalf of that committee to display in the best possible way the youth of our great area. It is also a significant confidence boost for the young children to participate in activities to demonstrate their skills to the wider community and, in particular, have that culminated in the Youth Week march. (Time expired)728728Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLP10—In the middle of last year, the Carr state government announced the construction of a sewage overflow tunnel from Lane Cove to North Head. There are a number of problems with this tunnel. First, it will involve a lot of disruption to the penguin colony at Manly during construction. Second, there is the problem of the exhaust outlet at Beauty Point. The biggest problem of all is that it will not actually solve the problem it is designed to address; namely, the difficulty of sewage overflows into Sydney Harbour during heavy rain. The problem is that this tunnel should not be used solely for waste.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Could I ask the honourable member for Watson to speak from his place, not from the table. In this instance I will hear you from there, but not in future.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—So I am not allowed to speak here as the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am not allowing you to do so.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—You are changing that, are you?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am changing that ruling, but I am hearing you on this occasion because you are there and you wish to make a point of order.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, earlier today the member for Burke sought the call to speak in this debate, and you did not call him because he was not a private member.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No. I called him, if I may just explain, because there was no other private member rising. One of your own private members rose. I called the private member. I will call a member, including a shadow minister at the table, if there is no private member of your side rising. I explained that to the honourable member for Burke because there was no other member on that side rising.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—This is a once in a generation opportunity to make the most of this tunnel. The tunnel is nothing but a right of way. I suggest very much to the Carr government that it should go back to the drawing board and this waste tunnel should be redesigned so that it can have transport infrastructure flow through it as well.The ABI Group put a proposal to the Carr government at an earlier stage that involved precisely this—using some of Sydney Water's infrastructure for a light rail system. It is very urgent that we tackle this. It is, as I said, a once in a generation opportunity. I have sought an urgent meeting with the Premier to discuss this. I believe that, if the Carr government is not prepared to do this, it is passing up a significant opportunity, a priceless opportunity, to do the right thing by the Manly-Warringah Peninsula.729729O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—On that issue that has come up, it was our understanding that I was on my feet and the member behind me was not.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He was halfway up. I am not too sure whether halfway up is wholly up or wholly down, but I took it as being wholly up and the honourable member had the call.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—In any case, in my 90-second statement, I would like to draw the House's attention to an unfortunate development in my electorate which stems directly from government policy; that is, the closure of the CSR timber processing plant and the loss of 130 jobs. I am pretty upset about that, particularly given that the government's timber industry strategy was supposed to be supporting value adding and not woodchips being exported to other countries. Through a downturn in the building industry and an influx of overseas cheaper products, we now have closure of Australian value adding, and the woodchips that were being used at this plant now simply go onto the export boat overseas.I do not regard that in any way as satisfactory industry policy for the timber industry. I want to draw attention to the fact that this policy is failing. We now have another 130 people out of work as a direct result of the failure of the government to implement the timber industry strategy that was in place before the change of government.729729Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—Further to my previous comments, I want to say that the special advantage of a Sydney offshore airport is that Mascot closes. It is the only option on the table at all in this area which provides some measure of relief to inner city residents. The technology is there. In the future, we can continue to put Sydney's air transport out to sea. The noise is only going to increase as air travel becomes the preferred option and the affordable option. This is the problem that we need to deal with in the future. We must look to direct Sydney's air traffic out to sea.We are looking at building in only 60 metres of water, about a kilometre offshore. We already have the King Edward Island bridge in Canada, which goes 12 kilometres out to sea, over which trucks and heavy transport travel daily on a continuous basis. We have a number of examples of offshore airports in Hong Kong and Japan, where operations out at sea are quite easily done. We are simply looking at putting this on piers rather than landfill.It is certainly an option that offers a vision for the people of Sydney. It offers a large infrastructure project post the 2,000 Olympics, and it sucks up a lot of the construction which will cease at the end of the Olympic Games. It is a novel concept. It is visionary. It is a real solution to the people of Lindsay. (Time expired)730730Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise very briefly to express my outrage at brochures being circulated by the member for Dobell (Mr Lee) in my electorate over supposedly increased fees for pharmaceutical benefits. This information being spread around the central coast is totally untrue. There are 1,800 drugs in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. The changes that have been implemented by this government affect only 28 of those drugs. Everyone knows that there is a clinical alternative to any of those drugs that are on that list. These brochures being circulated are designed to scare the elderly and the vulnerable in the central coast. It is an absolute disgrace.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A the time for members' statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice730730730Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, isn't it the case that, under the new employment arrangements, agencies which find work for married women who are not on benefits will not receive a fee from the government? If so, can the Prime Minister provide a guarantee to the 50,000 married women who are seeking work but who are not on benefits that they will not be disadvantaged under the new arrangements, will not have to pay fees, will get the same level of assistance as those on benefits and will get more help than just a touch screen? 730Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I want to take the opportunity of saying to the Leader of the Opposition that the new arrangements will provide to job seekers unrivalled services that they have never had before. These represent once again a major reform. They represent a new and better approach.There is a very systematic attempt under way, and it was in evidence again on Saturday in the Sydney Morning Herald when an attempt was made to say that there is going to be a squeeze on the long-term unemployed. It is very relevant to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Could I take a point of order, Mr Speaker? I asked a very specific question related to women who are married, not entitled to unemployment benefits and in a situation where they need access to those services.ZD4Mr HOWARD—They can be looking for a long time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister is responding to the question. There is no point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, the article suggested that job seekers would be charged a fee. I want to quote not from a statement made by a colleague but rather from a statement made by the managing director of Employment National. Employment National is only the privatised arm of the Commonwealth Employment Service. They sneer over there, but this is an organisation that has forgotten more about finding jobs for people than you have ever known.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Could I take a point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance? This was a highly specific question asked about the situation of women. He has been going now for about two minutes without reference to it.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. I ask members of the government to keep quiet.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Drawing on the statement made by the managing director of Employment National, the facts are these: Employment National will be encouraging all job seekers—and that includes the people referred to by the Leader of the Opposition—whether on benefits or not, to register with Employment National for job placement services.Let me spell it out in case the Leader of the Opposition does not understand it. It means that the 50,000 married women to whom he referred are included in that description. That has always been the situation and, if he had not deliberately distorted it and tried to mislead the married women of Australia in the way he has tried to do, then some of these articles would not have appeared.Secondly, Employment National went on to say:Employers will not and should not know whether a candidate is on benefits or not. Employment National is committed to finding the best person for each job vacancy. If fees are to be paid by employers, it will be for services we provide and will not be determined by whether or not the job seeker is on benefits.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Oh, not much!ZD4Mr HOWARD—`Not much', he says. This is only the managing director. The old hatchet man from the ACTU has destroyed more jobs than most of us have had. The hatchet man from the ACTU says, `Not much'.It concludes, rather resoundingly and comprehensively:No job seeker, whether or not on benefits, will be charged a fee.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—And buy the other?ZD4Mr HOWARD—If I were the Leader of the Opposition—Mr 11½ per cent unemployment, Mr 32 per cent youth unemployment—would not be running around talking about unemployment. He has no credibility on the subject.731731Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of steps taken by the Australian government in response to the difficult economic circumstances in Indonesia?731Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I know all members of the House will be continuing to feel deep concern about the deterioration which has taken place in the Indonesian economy. I know that those who concern themselves about the future of that country will be anxious that it secures not only greater economic stability but also greater political stability in the weeks and months ahead.The fall in the value of the rupiah has had very significant adverse consequences for ordinary Indonesians. We want—and I know that all members of this House want—a strong, stable and prosperous Indonesia. We believe, in order to achieve that, not only the involvement of the International Monetary Fund but also Indonesia's strong commitment to an effective program of help by the International Monetary Fund is necessary.But, on behalf of the government, I want to make it clear that we believe that the International Monetary Fund package must be implemented with care and sensitivity towards the impact of that package on social stability and social cohesion within Indonesia. We do understand the concern of the Indonesian government to stabilise the rupiah and, over the past two weeks, I have discussed the matter with the Prime Minister of Singapore and with the President of the World Bank, particularly in the context of organising food aid for Indonesia.My colleague the Treasurer has been in touch with the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and I have also written again on the subject to President Clinton, the Prime Minister of Japan, Mr Hashimoto, and to President Suharto himself. I hope that the IMF review can be quickly concluded and that a productive partnership between the IMF and the new Indonesian government can be developed as quickly as possible.As honourable members will know, Australia has responded sensibly and effectively to what has happened in the Asia-Pacific region. We are the only OECD country along with Japan to have participated in the three IMF rescue packages for Thailand, Korea and Indonesia. We agreed in February of this year that EFIC could provide insurance cover for exports to Indonesia on a case by case basis drawing on the national interest account.In the context of that, I announce today that the government has approved EFIC providing up to $380 million insurance cover for the balance of Australia's wheat sales to Indonesia this year on the national interest account. This step has been taken of course to help an Australian exporter. It will secure Australian jobs, but it will also be of benefit to the ordinary people of Indonesia. These arrangements are subject to a sovereign guarantee from Indonesia and discussions on that sovereign guarantee are under way at present. Practical support for the Indonesian people, and that includes ensuring food supplies, is one of the principal objectives of our policy. We have a national interest in a secure Indonesia. We have a national interest in a cohesive, stable Indonesia. We therefore have a national interest in a rescue package for Indonesia which pays proper account for the obvious need of the Indonesian people to have access to plentiful supplies of food at affordable prices.A rescue package that does not accommodate that very legitimate concern is a rescue package that is going to impose unreasonable strains upon the ordinary members of Indonesia's society. I wish the people of Indonesia well in their enormous difficulties. I know that the ordinary people of that very populous and important country carry the goodwill and the good thoughts of all members of this parliament whatever their political complexion.732732Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Can the minister explain how the Queensland company Allhands Hire Pty Ltd passed rigorous financial checks and received a tender for FLEX 1 when at the time tenders closed, September 1997, the company had financial problems with unprofitable contracts? Is the minister aware that by 16 February, only days after Allhands got a DEETYA letter saying that they had been selected to provide employment services, their business was up for sale and Lloyds Business Brokers of Brisbane were using DEETYA's letter as a carrot to sell Allhands? Minister, isn't this another case of cost, not value, driving the outcome?732Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Every tenderer, as the member for Batman said, went through financial viability checks.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What about rigorous?BT4Dr KEMP—They were rigorous financial viability checks and quality checks.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! A little bit more quiet please!BT4Dr KEMP—I am not aware of the specific case that the member puts forward. I will look into the facts.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I seek leave to table documentation proposing the sale of this company so that the minister can investigate the facts.Leave not granted.732732Johnston, Ricky, MPMrs JOHNSTONNL6CanningLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the benefits to Australian women of reforming our superannuation arrangements as they apply upon the dissolution of marriage?732Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Canning for her question. The fact of the matter is that reforming superannuation arrangements and their treatment upon a dissolution of marriage will be of enormous benefit to women in Australia. Superannuation is increasingly becoming a major asset of families and a major asset which should be properly and justly disposed of in the situation of a dissolution of marriage.Whilst superannuation is being more often recognised in property settlements arising from marriage breakdown today, it is being done in an incomplete and unsatisfactory way. There is no consistent way of putting a value on superannuation. Nor is there a simple way of apportioning in relation to particularly defined benefits schemes. There is no mechanism to divide superannuation between spouses if they should decide that this would be the best outcome.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! I ask members to keep their audible level of conversation down.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Prior to the 1996 election, the coalition promised to examine the treatment of superannuation following the dissolution of marriage. I can report that the coalition has kept that promise and the coalition announced, by way of a speech from the Prime Minister on Sunday, a very important reform in this area.We will be guided by six principles in relation to this: that superannuation should be taken into account in division; that there should be clear rules; that parties should be encouraged to settle their own affairs; that the treatment should be consistent with the broader goals of retirement income policy; that the reforms should minimise the complexity and cost; and that the reforms should be conducted in a fair and just way. The government will be developing a position paper based on these principles to be released in the coming months. Last week I wrote to the state governments concerning this matter and also wrote to interested key constituencies such as the Australian Superannuation Funds Association.These reforms will be of particular benefit to Australian women because it is Australian women who now have the opportunity in relation to that very large asset to have clear lines, clear rules, the opportunity to settle that up in the dissolution of a marriage. However, I also point out that the reforms will work both ways and will also be available to men on the dissolution of a marriage where the superannuation should be a major asset of the ex-wife concerned. The issue will be considered alongside family law property reforms generally. These are being developed by the Attorney-General. This is an overdue and welcome reform, and it took a coalition government to do it.733733Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that Mr Khada Roude does not hold, and has not applied for, a licence to operate as an employment agent in New South Wales under the Employment Agents Act 1996? Does the minister know that under the act suitable office facilities are required, including appropriate lighting, ventilation, furnishings, record storage facilities, accommodation for visitors and a private area for interviews? Minister, given all these processes still have to be undertaken, will you guarantee that Mr Roude will start operating on 1 May?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the minister, all members should be careful that, when asking questions, they do not cast slur on the name of any individual. In this instance no slur was intended. Questions have very strict parameters which are identified. I call in response the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.733Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Mr Speaker, if I may say so, I think those remarks are very well taken. The questioner is referring to a particular contractor who has only recently been informed that he has obtained a contract. That contractor has passed not only the financial viability checks but also the quality checks and is, contrary to incorrect statements made by the opposition in the media, of experience in helping unemployed people. He has, as I informed the House last week, a registered business name. Like many other people who have recently been informed that they have contracts—large and small providers—he is, as I understand it, in the process of setting up his facilities. He is not required to have those facilities in place at the date of the awarding of the contract. He is required to have those facilities in place on 1 May when services commence.One of the great features of the tender round which has just been completed and of which the results have been announced is that, like this particular tenderer, there are many in the tender round who are new providers in this market because the government has been determined to break out of the traditional club of providers to find the very best people in Australia to help unemployed people. Our responsibilities are to unemployed people. They are not to particular organisations; they are to ensure that unemployed people get the best option.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked an absolutely specific set of questions about the particular operation of Mr Roude. He has skated around the edge of it for a minute or two and has said that he sort of guarantees that he is starting up on 1 May, but all the rest of it is irrelevant to the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order which has some validity. I ask the minister to take note of the particularity of the question. The minister has finished his answer.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—I seek leave to table for the minister's education the private employment agent's licence application form in New South Wales so he can read it.Leave not granted.734734Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of media reports which have drawn a comparison between the government's attitude to vital policy affecting rural and regional Australia and the attitude taken by other groups in the community? Would the Deputy Prime Minister please explain what the differences are and why it is important for all rural and regional Australia that these matters be resolved as quickly as possible?QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under standing order 144, this is clearly asking the minister for an expression of opinion on a range of matters and it is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It is a form of question which has been used, to my knowledge, for the last 30 years. I declare it in order.734Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—As we examine the situation facing rural and regional Australia, I pause for a moment to reflect on the tremendous and horrific circumstances faced by those in northern Australia so far this year at Townsville, Katherine and also now around Burketown and Normanton from the deluge. The federal government is supplying the Royal Australian Air Force and elements thereof for national disasters relief. I highlight this because they have so many concerns out there at this moment and we are doing our best to deal with them.What has now been revealed though over the last two weeks is an extraordinary deal by elements of the Labor Party and elements of the elite Aboriginal leadership group known as the A-team to gag Father Frank Brennan, Jesuit priest—no mean feat, dare I say, in gagging a Jesuit priest. But, nevertheless, they have gone down that particular path.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. While I agree that it would be almost impossible to be irrelevant to the question that was asked, I think he has managed it. He has managed to go beyond a simple discussion of rural matters to a discussion of a particular set of correspondence which appeared in the paper which has nothing to do with the particular points he is making.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to keep his answer relevant.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Happily, Mr Speaker. What we now have is the exposure of a Labor Party plot which is simply to use Wik and abuse Wik with regard to partisan political advantage in every way, shape and form.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not recollect anything in the question that was asked that referred to Labor Party plots, Frank Brennan letters, evil Wik conspiracies and all the other phantasmagoria that seems to influence the views of your ex-leader.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister will maintain relevance.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—The question, of which I just happen to have a copy, refers to the attitude taken by groups—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Just happen to have?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—I am honest. I am not denying that. The question refers to the attitude taken by groups in the community and the impact on rural and regional Australia. That is clearly in order and I will give my answer in that order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would be grateful if you would.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me quote in respect of the letter Father Frank Brennan wrote to Peter Yu on 13 January after being told to be silent. He said:As you head down a double dissolution path, be assured of my cooperation through my silence from here on in. PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. If he had been asked a question directly on the matter there would be no problem with that. What he had was a question about generalised rural interests.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—We will not pursue an argument. The Deputy Prime Minister will answer the question specifically put to him and maintain relevance to it.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—The comparison is clear-cut when you turn to the next quote.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest the Deputy Prime Minister might draw his answer to a close. You are getting a bit off the track.Opposition members interjecting—DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—You don't like it because your shabby deal has been exposed. You might try to silence Frank Brennan, but you won't silence me.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—You big bullies!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that the Deputy Prime Minister answers the question rather than exchanges in banter across the chamber.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—What we now know is that, as the Prime Minister's efforts to reach an agreement for rural and regional Australia with regard to the 10-point plan and native title were beginning to show success with stakeholders, the Labor Party decided to move the goalposts.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 144 in anticipation of business and draw your attention to the fact that the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 is listed as a notice. I also draw your attention to pages 511 and 512 of House of Representatives Practice , which I am sure go to the very issue that you are prepared to respond to.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As the honourable gentleman would know as a former Speaker of this House, a notice that is on the Notice Paper is different altogether from a bill that is before the House. There is no bill before us. I call the Deputy Prime Minister but, in so doing, I urge him to draw his answer to a close.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Happily, Mr Speaker. I will do so by one further quote which is very relevant and brings this matter entirely together as to why people want a fair deal from Wik and why our legislation should be backed in that regard. I refer to the article in the Eureka Street magazine written by Father Brennan when he said:Despite the populist appeal of this Labor amendment, the opposition parties should back down in the interests of certainty, justice and workability for all stakeholders.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister is treating you with contempt by ignoring your ruling.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister has finished.735735Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Attorney-General. Has the Attorney-General seen today's media reports that the Privacy Commissioner is deeply concerned that the privacy rights of the unemployed have been undermined by the Howard government's reforms to employment services? Did the Attorney-General receive any warning about the privacy rights of the unemployed being undermined before the Howard government decided to implement its employment reforms? What steps will the Attorney-General now take to protect the rights of the unemployed from unscrupulous operators who may want to misuse this data?SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Get advice from Nick Bolkus.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for O'Connor!4T4MELHAMMr Melham—At least he doesn't get rolled week in and week out in the shadow cabinet like somebody else we know!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Banks! The Attorney-General will give his answer.735Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The government, as it has amply demonstrated over the last two years, is strongly committed to the protection of privacy and to the provision of access to documents under the FOI Act when contracting out any functions. To this end, on Thursday last week the government introduced the Privacy Amendment Bill 1998 into this House. The bill amends the Privacy Act to extend its coverage to all contractors who hold personal information for the purposes of providing services outsourced by the government. All private sector organisations providing employment market services under contract will be covered by the amendments and will be required to comply with the information privacy principles contained in the act.If individuals believe their privacy has been interfered with by an employment service, they will be able to complain to the Privacy Commissioner. She will be able to investigate, conciliate and, if necessary, make a determination awarding compensation or other remedies. In addition, contractors, including employment market services, will be part of the Privacy Commissioner's audit program.During the drafting of the bill, the Privacy Commissioner's office was consulted and its comments were taken into account. It would appear that the Deputy Privacy Commissioner's comments were taken out of context or misquoted. As he would be well aware, the bill places the new employment services in the same position as the government agencies. In fact, I have been provided with a letter from the Deputy Privacy Commissioner dated today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I draw the Attorney-General's attention to the fact that this bill is on the Notice Paper .CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—Mr Martin Ferguson asked the question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I know, but I am drawing his attention to the fact that it is now a matter before the House, so I suggest he draws his answer to a close as soon as possible.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—Mr Speaker, I will not take the time of the House to read the letter, but the effect of the letter is that the Deputy Privacy Commissioner pointed out that what he said to the reporter was that the new private sector employment services would not be directly covered by the Privacy Act; they would in fact be covered by this new bill. Could I just mention something. Last year, the Reform of Employment Services Bill 1997 was passed by this House and sent to the Senate where it was emasculated by a combination of the Labor Party and the Democrats.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You withdrew it.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—It was emasculated by amendment.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You withdrew it from debate. You ran away from accountability.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—That contained express, specific provisions relating to privacy protection that, by your actions, you prevented being law already.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I ask that the minister table the document and the letter from which he was reading.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Are the document and the letter marked confidential?7V5Mr WILLIAMS—Part of them are.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am afraid that it is either all or none. If it is not marked confidential, I am afraid I will have to ask you to table it.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—I table what I was reading from, Mr Speaker.736736Jeanes, Susan, MPMs JEANESEK6KingstonLP10—My question is also addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General inform the House whether any recent statements on the leaking of confidential Federal Court documents on government action against Christopher Skase have indicated who may be responsible for the leak?736Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Last Friday, 6 March, Senator Bolkus told the 7.30 Report that what he had been caught reading to the media at his January press conference was only two pages of a 30-page affidavit. It is curious that he thinks reading only part of a confidential document would in any way lessen the seriousness of the improper behaviour. Coincidently, the two pages Senator Bolkus read from were the same two pages that were boxed in the press gallery later that day. Curiously, the pages that were boxed in the gallery had certain sentences highlighted and these were the very same sentences Senator Bolkus read to the media.What is the defence that Labor put up to this charge of improper behaviour? The Leader of the Opposition defended Senator Bolkus last week by asserting, with no evidence, that it was Senator Vanstone's office which had leaked the affidavit. At that time, Senator Vanstone's office had not had the affidavit. How could they leak it? In fact, the document Senator Bolkus read to the media was a document of such confidentiality that a Federal Court order was required to allow anyone not directly involved with it to have it. The Federal Court has notified the government, as was pointed out last week, that no such order had been sought and no such order had been made.The Deputy Leader of the Opposition defended Senator Bolkus by saying that all the information in the leaked article was in the Daily Telegraph article of the same day. The member for Holt went on to say: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—and it referred to where Skase was reputed to have bank accounts. Either the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has misled the House or he cannot read a newspaper. The article simply did not detail the location of the assets being sought. In fact, it stated:The proportion or location of Skase's hidden fortune which has been identified has not been revealed.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—And then went on to reveal it.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Read on.DT4CREANMr Crean—Go to page 2.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—I will table it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members of the opposition will remain quiet. The Attorney-General has the call.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—By their statements, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reveal that Senator Bolkus has no defence.737737Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise if his government will allow as tax deductible expenditure the costs of businesses converting systems to cope with the so-called millennium bug? Will the decision be taken by the government or by the Australian Taxation Office?737Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Curtin for his question, and I welcome him back to the House of Representatives in this new session. Normally speaking, the question of whether or not costs would be deductible would depend on whether they went to capital or whether they were determined to be of an income nature. That would certainly be the application of the current taxation law. It would vary, I would imagine, according to the nature of the business that was engaged in and the nature of the remedial work.Having said that, I think it is proper that the government does take the decision on this. The honourable member for Curtin will know that the government has established a very high powered committee, and ministerial responsibility for that is with the Minister for Finance and Administration and the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism. One of the terms of reference of that committee is to look at the taxation consequences and make recommendations to the government, which I will be very happy to receive. I thank the member for his question.737737West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, can you inform the House of the impact that the leaking of sensitive material from the investigation into the bankruptcy of Christopher Skase has had on small business and what that has done to the likelihood of those small businesses getting some of their money back?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Honourable members for the opposition will remain silent. Has the honourable member for Bowman finished her question?XK6Mrs WEST—I have.738Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Bowman for her question. There is no doubt that, in circumstances where a big business goes bust and the attempts to recover moneys from the residue of such a business are thwarted, the people who suffer are those many thousands of small businesses which simply do not have the legal resources to chase the Skases of this world. That is why those small business operators really are reliant on the `system'—that is, government and the appropriate agencies—taking the appropriate action to ensure that funds are recovered.In this particular case, a lot of small businesses were impacted and suffered as a result of the fraud and associated activities of Mr Skase. For example, one small business was owed $1,700 for catering services. That business eventually, presumably for a number of reasons, went bankrupt, but they were not helped by a system where the Skases of this world are not properly pursued with the full might of the law. Another business—a chauffer and hire car company—was owed $1,859. It is now in liquidation, no thanks to the failure of the previous government to chase Mr Skase. Then there is the secretarial service which was owed $1,733.40 and the gallery which was owed $5,465.These are small amounts and, from the opposition's point of view, a small amount is nothing when it comes to looking after one of their mates. If one of their mates has been protecting Christopher Skase, they think their obligation is to protect that mate—in this case, Senator Bolkus—instead of standing up for the small business community that deserves a system which will see every effort undertaken to bring these people to book.The Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have form on these issues. They are both pattern protectors. They were the defence legal team for Mal Colston when they were two new members and ministers back in the early 1980s. They were the two who buried the Colston affair. Now we find they are protecting Senator Bolkus. They are doing so by standing up in the House, as they did last week, and misleading the House about the facts and the circumstances. To show you how low these people will go: they were making allegations that the minister had the affidavit, when her office did not even have the affidavit. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and his sidekick the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the small business community is very angry at your failure to deal with Senator Bolkus, and they will continue to remind you of it.738738Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Family Services. How much money does the government expect to raise from older Australians through the extra daily nursing home fee? Is it the case that none of this money will go to improving the quality of nursing homes? Will the government reconsider and redirect this money into Australia's nursing homes?RH4KERRMr Kerr—Ah, ha! The new member for Casey!ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—I wouldn't talk too much about swapping seats; you had a mate who did that!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Minister will give his answer and the crosschat will cease.738Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The reason why the country is in difficulty with regard to funding for nursing homes is that the opposition had 13 years to address the issue.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the question of relevance. It was a very specific question about how much the government is getting from these nursing home fees.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask members of the government to remain silent.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—How much, Warwick?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Jagajaga has addressed her question; I ask her to remain silent.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—I can well appreciate why they are so sensitive, because this is the graph that tells the story. That is your neglect. That is why people in this country—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order which goes to the question of relevance. The question that was asked was how much the government expected to raise and whether the money is going to go to improving the quality of the nursing homes; if not, will they redirect it in that direction. We are asking specific questions here.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The minister is entirely relevant.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—As I was saying, it is absolutely necessary because of your neglect to address the need for capital needs in nursing homes. The accommodation charges I have indicated over the four-year period provide the same amount of money as was required by the Gregory benchmarks. These funds will be applied by nursing homes to the capital upgrades. I have announced an additional $20 million—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: this question has nothing to do with capital funding. It is about the extra daily fee.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member will resume her seat. The answer is entirely relevant. Minister, have you concluded your answer?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Tell the truth!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will withdraw that remark.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You might remain silent. I accept that you were not accusing the minister of dishonesty. There was an implication that you were, but I understand that you were not.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—I expect every politician to tell the truth.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would hope they do.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that honourable members of the opposition remain silent, and I suggest that it is a good idea if you do not make implications. It was that to which I was drawing attention.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by the opposition. The money raised by daily fees goes to nursing homes; it does not go to the government. It goes to upgrading nursing homes because of your neglect. The range of other matters that I have announced already for the benefit of the aged in this country improved markedly their position compared with what you did in the 13 years you had to look after the aged in this community.Ms Macklin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga will remain silent.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—You know that this confected indignation and outrageous interjections are all to do with politics, nothing to do with caring for the aged in this community.739739Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer aware of the contents of a report on industry expectations released today by the Housing Industry Association at its headquarters in my electorate of Parramatta? Can the Treasurer explain the relationship between this government's commitment to a low inflation, low interest rate economy and growing levels of confidence among employers and investors in the housing industry?739Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have seen a media release put out by the HIA—I did not know it was centred in the electorate of Parramatta; may it long be centred in that electorate—headed `Builder confidence grows as housing sales rise'. Isn't that good news for the Australian economy! I think all members of this House will be pleased to see the housing industry in a very positive state in a very positive economic climate. The HIA noted:Australia's home builders are confident they can defy the Asian financial fallout. They reveal that 41 per cent of all builders recorded higher sales over the six months to December and 49 per cent of builders expect higher sales in the first half of 1998. I think all members of the House would be pleased to see the home building industry growing and optimistic. It went on:19 per cent of builders say they are likely to hire more workers compared to only 4 per cent anticipating a reduction in employment.So we have an optimistic home building industry and good prospects for more jobs, together with today's ANZ job advertisements. Again, I think both sides of the House will be pleased to see that the number of ANZ job advertisements went up 5.1 per cent in February. I see the Deputy Leader of the Opposition shaking his head and looking mournful about the fact that there are now greater opportunities for job seekers in Australia. Let me make it clear: as far as the coalition is concerned, an increase in the number of jobs is a good thing. We actually welcome it. This is the party that believes in employment opportunities for the Australian public. We actually think it is a good thing to see the housing industry on a positive basis.Housing affordability, which is at an all time record, has been led by a policy of low interest rates. On this side of the House, we like giving young people the opportunity to buy their own home and to have low interest rates. Since March of last year, the standard variable interest rate—which has gone down to 6.7 per cent—has meant that an average family on the average Australian mortgage of $100,000 would now be saving $300 a month in interest payments. Young families have the opportunity to get into their own homes because of the low inflation and low interest rate policy of this government. But it cannot be produced out of nothing.There is a risk, if people support the Labor Party at the next election, that interest rates would go right back to where they were. Under a Labor government, that would mean you would be paying $300 a month more on your mortgage. Under a Labor government, rather than being 6.7 per cent, interest rates would be right up there where they were when Australia's worst ever financial minister left the Australian economy—back at 10½ per cent. And he thought that was a great success because he was coming off a 17 per cent mortgage interest rate!Mr Speaker, they have not learned a thing. They are still up here—and listen to the member for Jagajaga; she'll do it in a moment—promising money they do not have to everybody who has ears to listen, running the Australian budget out into deficit, climbing up debt, pushing out inflation and, worst of all for the young people of Australia, pushing up interest rates again. The young people of Australia have had the benefit of a low inflation, low interest rate environment and this side of the House intends to keep it that way.740740Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Family Services. Why did the minister claim that the money from the higher daily fee will go to upgrading nursing homes when every extra dollar is clawed back by the government? Has the minister changed the policy again, or does he not understand his own policy?740Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—No, we have not changed our policy. The accommodation charges go to the capital upgrading, as does the additional $20 million which I have previously announced, also the $10 million dollar, and the daily fees go directly to nursing homes, as the member for Jagajaga knows. What the opposition has to do is start to explain to the Australian people why they did not do anything for 13 years and what they are going to do for the future of people in nursing homes in this country, 65 per cent of whom are full pensioners? We have not heard a constructive piece of policy from the opposition. There was nothing at their convention in Hobart, and I listened very carefully. All there was was the intimation—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Point of order, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The answer is relevant, so I hope it is not that.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—It is not relevant, Mr Speaker. The minister was asked specifically what was happening to the daily nursing homes fee and he is giving us a rant about everything but that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—As I was about to say, how are you going to fund the needs of the aged in this country? As I revealed in question time just before we broke for Christmas—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I raise a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. The question had nothing to do with this. As the minister should know, every dollar is clawed back by this government, every single dollar.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will address his answer to the question.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—As I was saying, the needs of the aged in the nursing homes sector in this country are catered for by the policy prescriptions put forward by this government and have been articulated and continue to be articulated by myself as the minister. The question I want answered is: how are you going to fund the needs of the aged in this country? As I was saying, just prior to Christmas we saw one of the leading Victorian MPs announce that he thought a death duty should be applied. Is that how you are going to fund it? You have said nothing. You are playing politics.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable the minister will respond to the question.MG4LEEMr Lee—A point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was specifically about the higher daily fees and the fact that they have been clawed back by the government, nothing about death duties.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is answering the question. The member will resume his seat.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—Mr Speaker, I think I have made my point. The funds that are generated by the accommodation charge go to correcting the wrongs that you delivered to the sector and the daily fees go to the nursing homes. You have done nothing, you have announced nothing and you are playing cheap politics with the aged of this country.741741Barresi, Phil, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Is the minister aware of a case last week in which a non-citizen, who was convicted for possession of a large quantity of heroin, might be allowed to stay in Australia because he has a young son? What is the minister intending to do to ensure that the Australian community, as a whole, is properly protected from criminal elements of this nature?741Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I am aware of the decision in the Federal Court. At the present time, we are considering whether it should be the subject of an appeal. For that reason, I have to exercise some care in relation to the comments that I might make.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Why are you commenting on it?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—One of your colleagues has seen fit to comment, and I will refer to that as I go through my answer. Let me make it very clear that I am very concerned about any decision that allows a non-citizen who has been convicted for possession of almost 1½ kilograms of heroin with a street value of over $3 million to remain in Australia preying upon the children of Australian families.My advice is that the arguments in this case are linked with the rights of an applicant's child as they relate to the Convention on the Rights of the Child—in other words, the rights of an applicant's child in Australia, but not the rights of Australian children generally. Yet we have Senator Bolkus quoted as saying on behalf of the opposition that this is a `government bungle'. Let me make it very clear: this is a matter that this government has been desirous of seeing fixed in several ways. The matters are before the Senate now. You have the capacity to show whether or not you are on side in dealing with these issues by the way in which you respond to this legislation. I do not want to go outside my own area, but the Attorney-General's bill—QE4BEDDALLMr Beddall—But you will.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Yes, I will. But the Attorney-General's bill that deals with the administrative decisions, the Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1997 , is one that you could give support for. It is one that you supported when you were in government. It is one you have walked away from on the basis that you are now arguing that Teoh's case was not going to have any effect on administrative decision making.You can also support the legislation that will enable us to deal with the whole range of character issues, which you opened up when you amended the Immigration Act to take away from the government the onus of the issue of the applicant's character. You can put that back if you are prepared to agree to that legislation. Finally, you have the legislation dealing with the privative clause. If you are going to leave the decisions in relation to these matters in the hands of the courts, you will continue to have difficulties of this sort—on and on.742742Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Family Services. Is the minister aware that, when the government removes the operational subsidy for out of school hours child-care services, fees will increase for parents by $3 a day? How does the government expect parents, especially those on low incomes—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—A little more quiet on the government side, please.PG6Ms MACKLIN—to meet the increase? What will the government do to prevent a return of latchkey kids?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think it might be a good idea for you to repeat the last bit of the question if the members of the government remain silent while you do so.PG6Ms MACKLIN—How does the government expect parents, especially those on low incomes, to meet this increase in fees? What will the government do to prevent a return of latchkey kids?742Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The surprising thing about questions on after school hours care is that the recent changes that have been announced—Opposition members interjecting—GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—It would be of interesting for members, and particularly the opposition, to listen to this. The interesting thing about questions about the affordability of those who are using after school hours care—which is one of the range of options for parents to access for care of their children—is that for the first time in this government's tenure, and indeed in this country's history, parents will have access to the child-care assistance regime. It will be available to those who are utilising those services from 27 April.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Why are you taking it away?GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—Why don't you let me finish for a change? The reason this is being done, as honourable members would know, is that a pilot study was started some two years ago, under your government, as to what was the best way to deliver assistance to those parents who were utilising those services—because they previously did not get that assistance. We decided, on seeing the completion of those pilot studies, that the best way to do this was to offer child-care assistance. From 27 April, 51,000 families who previously got no assistance are now going to get access to assistance. The reason is that the money goes directly to the parents. You know, in social policy terms, that it is far better for that money to be in the hands of the parents. That is why we did it. It was a pilot scheme that you started; you would have come to the same conclusion, because it is possessed of equity. It is the far better way to deliver these after school hours services to Australian families.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—And what if the cost of the care is not—GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—No, you should listen. The other thing to remember about after school hours care in this country is that it is the least sophisticated of the delivery mechanisms for child care, because it is the smallest. There are a variety of after school hours care services in this country. They came to me and said, `We need some assistance in administering these new arrangements.' We provided them initially with $12 million. Only two weeks ago I provided a further $8 million to help them. I said I would keep it under review—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Why is the fee going up?GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—to make sure that they could administer these arrangements for the benefit of Australian parents. As to the matter of the fees, because the arrangements have changed, there will be a higher level of administration required of after school hours care. That is why they are being provided with an additional $20 million. That is on direct representation and support of the after school hours care sector. You're sitting here and misrepresenting the facts has a direct analogy with what you are trying to do in aged care—trying to scare the old people of this country. Now, through misrepresentation and dodgy surveys which your political mates are putting into circulation, you are trying to scare the parents who are seeking quality child care.We are committed to quality child care in this country. Finally, on 19 November in this place you asked a question about child care—the only other question you have ever asked about child care—and wasn't it ironic? It was the day after you supported the new child-care act in this place. You are a bunch of hypocrites.743743Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware of talks today between the stevedoring company, Patrick, and the MUA over a threatened 48-hour strike by unions at Port Botany later this week? What is the basis of the discussions, and what would be the best outcome for Australian exporters from these talks?743Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Longman for his question. There are reports in the press today of discussions going on between the Maritime Union of Australia and Patricks—one of Australia's two leading stevedoring companies—about terms and conditions in the Sydney operations of Patricks. It is also quite clear that the MUA is intending to take industrial action later this week. It has already given advance warning that it will be taking 48-hour strike action on Wednesday and Thursday. I think anybody who has followed this dispute will appreciate that the real reason for the MUA taking action at the end of the week is that it is just a payback for the fact that Patricks acted in its business interests in subleasing part of its property at Webb Dock. This is a campaign of vengeance by the union which is attempting to undermine the right of a business to go about its lawful business. That matter was the subject of a commission hearing, where the union had a chance to put its point of view, and they were ordered back to work by the Industrial Relations Commission. Then the matter was again in the Victorian Supreme Court. The MUA had an opportunity to say what it wanted to say, to put its case. The judge said that the damage was alarming and that the industrial action taken by the MUA was unjustified. He granted an injunction to the benefit of Patricks to keep that business going.This latest attempt by the MUA is nothing other than industrial thuggery of the sort we have long seen from this union. Sadly, it is supported by the silence of the Labor opposition who, when in government, were never able to actually address these issues. They oversaw the spending of $420 million and we still have the rorts and inefficiencies on the Australian waterfront that are costing Australians jobs, costing us export income and other opportunities. In the latest Bulletin, No. 33—which should be in members' offices by the end of the day and will shortly be on the Internet—we have the latest rort which is being defended by the Labor Party. It says:At Patrick's Newcastle there is an Enterprise Communications committee designed to improve company employee communications. The committee is supposed to meet during idle time.Currently in Newcastle, idle time—namely, when there are no ships in port—is about 67 per cent. In other words, the employees are working less than two days a week and having the rest off on full pay. That actually is not my rort for the day, because I have raised that particular issue before. The Bulletin goes on to say:The rort has to do with the grandly titled Enterprise Communications Committee.The Newcastle wharfies recently refused to attend the committee meeting unless they were paid an extra quarter day off and an $11.20 meal allowance. There is no end to the rorts and the rip-offs on the Australian waterfront. Labor had 13 years to do something about it and failed to do so. And this week, whilst we have industrial thuggery in the port of Sydney, these people, the opposition, who are tied hand and foot to the MUA, cannot even speak up in the national interest against rorts of that sort.744744Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Why did the Treasurer say last week on the John Laws program that he wanted a GST with a single rate `set in concrete', when he knew that the government cannot set any tax rate in concrete short of having a referendum and entrenching it in the constitution? How can the Treasurer guarantee that an Australian GST, once introduced, will not ever increase, just as it has, for example, in New Zealand from 10 to 12½ per cent and in the United Kingdom from 10 to 17½ per cent?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask government members to remain silent.744Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Why do we call him Kylie Minogue? I should be so lucky! Here is the Australian Labor Party reminding us that indirect taxes can be put up. Do we need any reminding?ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Oh, yes. Do you pay him for these questions?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Were we all here in 1993 when we heard Mr Keating say, `What I am promising is not to put up tax'?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Yes!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Did we hear him talk about his income tax, which was not a promise? It was?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—L-a-w!VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: of course any government can put up tax rates. That is why it is nonsensical to talk in terms of `concrete'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader has no point of order. The Deputy Leader will resume his seat.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—That is the question he was asked. How can he guarantee, how can any government guarantee, that a GST will not increase in rates? Why say you can set it in concrete when you cannot?Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader will resume his seat. I ask government members to remain silent.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Were we here after the 1993 election when we saw the Labor Party take the wholesale sales tax rate, which was 10 per cent, and make it 12 per cent? Did we see them take the 20 per cent rate and make it 22 per cent? Did we see the l-a-w disappear as a big l-i-; I am not allowed to say that, Mr Speaker! That is a question which is worthy of publication in the next edition of `The Gareth' and, if he does not do it, I will.744744Hicks, Noel, MPMr HICKSAH4RiverinaNP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of misleading comments about assistance for unemployed people through Job Network? Minister, what are the facts?744Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Riverina for his question. What I would like to draw attention to is that we do in fact owe thanks to the member for Batman. As a result of his earlier question today and remarks that he has been reported as making in the media, we immediately know what the truth of any matter is: it is the opposite of what the member for Batman has said or implied.The most recent of the inaccuracies that the member for Batman has put about was what he implied in his first question about Allhands Hire. I have now had advice about the actual facts of the situation. The member for Batman claimed that Allhands Hire is for sale. The facts are that All Hands Hire—as we are informed by the company itself—is not for sale. The financial viability check was carried out, and the company demonstrated an operating profit and a satisfactory financial situation to pass that. The company has a contract for some 2,000 job matching places.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—How much is the contract?BT4Dr KEMP—Let me make the point—because the point is raised that people are being given contracts worth a lot of money—that one of the great advantages of the new system is that no-one gets any money unless they place an unemployed person in a job. The payment is made when they get unemployed people into jobs; that is what the new system is about. It is not like your system which handed out money hand over fist, whether or not the performance was granted.Let me make the point, to put the facts clearly on the record, that if a company which has a contract in the new Job Network decides to sell the business as a commercial consideration, the contract does not automatically transfer to the purchaser of that business. It would require the agreement of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, who would assess the new owner's viability before any agreement would be made.In other words, exactly the same rigorous process of assessment would apply. The procedures apply to any company that wants to sell within the 19-month period of the contract. That is by no means the limit of the inaccuracies that we keep getting from the member for Batman. On 7 March, on Canberra radio news, he stated that over 400,000 Australians will no longer be entitled to a helping hand—to that free employment service that used to be part of Australia's endeavour to get our unemployed people back to work. That is absolutely wrong. He is trying to spread fear and anxiety amongst unemployed people. He has never cared about unemployed people. We know the contempt in which he holds them, and we know that the Labor Party has only ever used its policies for unemployed people to try to manipulate the statistics.The Prime Minister read to the House the statement issued by Employment National which clearly put paid to that matter. Every unemployed person in Job Network gets access to greatly upgraded facilities through Centrelink. They get an expanded vacancy list and they get access to a free computer, faxes, photocopiers and telephones to contact employers. All the major providers in Job Net work have clearly indicated to us that they will take any unemployed person and seek to match the best person to the vacancy. Not only has Employment National said that, as the Prime Minister indicated, but Drake has also said, `If they come to us, we would consider taking them for that job, along with everyone else who was the best person for the job. I can give you that undertaking.' The Salvation Army and Mission Australia have given us precisely the same undertakings. The Labor Party will say in this matter anything it takes to get a cheap vote—whatever it takes. The government is putting in place an outstanding system to help unemployed people and the Labor Party should stop trying to spread disinformation, fear and anxiety amongst the people in this community who need help.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I ask the minister to table the paper from which he is quoting. I also seek leave to table from Lloyd's Business Brokers a statement which says that the business they have been appointed to sell is Allhands Hire, along with the detail of the particular contract they have been awarded, so that the minister can check his facts with the facts that have been put out by Lloyd's Business Brokers.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. Is that document from which the minister read confidential?BT4KEMPDr Kemp—It is.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The document is marked confidential. Is leave granted for the Leader of the Opposition to table the document?Leave not granted.745745Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Sport and Tourism. What is the minister doing to compensate for the 10.7 per cent drop in arrivals of international passengers at Cairns airport and the consequent effect on the North Queensland tourist industry?745Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLPSport and Tourism;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—I thank you for the question. It is a shame that you waited a week to ask me a question about the tourism industry when we have had three months off from this parliament, but you might recall that in some of the answers I gave you last year I said that, as a group of people charged with these sorts of responsibilities, we should take a realistic attitude and not be hysterical about it and that we should look to the diversity of our tourist product and our tourist markets rather than concentrating all our eggs in any one basket. In the case of Cairns, which I took the opportunity to visit on Saturday morning last week at the invitation of the honourable member for Leichhardt, Mr Entsch—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Did they give you alligator boots?FB6Mr ANDREW THOMSON—Daryl, they are crocodile, not alligator, and, if you had ever spent any time in Queensland, you would have known that; but, with a policy on Wik like yours, you wouldn't want to set foot in that state.Government members interjecting—FB6Mr ANDREW THOMSON—I think he has learned his lesson. Among the things we discussed was not just the durability of our product—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Could I have a greater level of silence, please.FB6Mr ANDREW THOMSON—When you look across the entire spectrum of tourist product and our tourist markets, not just Cairns, you see that some of our markets are doing rather well. For example, preliminary figures from January indicate that we have increased arrivals from the UK, New Zealand and the United States. These are higher yielding markets than some of the Asian markets that have fallen off. So if you are going to deal with it in some particularity—you are suggesting a specific rescue package for Cairns in that sense—you have to examine things such as the supply of hotel accommodation at that end of the spectrum. For example, I spent Friday night staying in a backpacker lodge in Cairns to see what it was like. I did it anonymously. I walked in with my adviser. I might say I enjoyed it.8I4MARTINMr Martin—That wouldn't be hard, mate, let's face it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Cunningham will remain silent.Opposition members interjecting—FB6Mr ANDREW THOMSON—I did not take my sleeping bag, but I did not need it because it was so hot.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members of the opposition will remain silent. The minister will respond to the question and not to the interjections.Mr Martin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Cunningham will remain silent.FB6Mr ANDREW THOMSON—It was; it was the International Hostel on the Esplanade. What became clear was that at the backpacker end of the market things are booming. Mine was the last room in that hostel and the other hostel was full. We know from research on this that backpackers yield more than tourists from some of the markets that have slumped. If you are going to be serious about a particular destination, you cannot just focus on particular markets where it is selling its product, in this case Korea and other markets in Asia. What we are not going to do, as I am sure you will do if you gain office, is to unionise the tourism industry.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions to the Speaker746746746Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Mr Speaker, in accordance with standing order 150, I request you to contact the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in respect of my question on notice No. 2548 placed on the Notice Paper on 24 November and also the Minister representing the Special Minister of State in respect of question No. 2586 placed on the Notice Paper on 3 December.746Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As requested, I shall write to both ministers accordingly.746746Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, I refer to an article appearing in today's Age entitled `I was offered job early, says Sinclair'. Mr Speaker, when precisely did the Prime Minister offer you the job of Speaker of the House and has he made any promises to you in relation to support for a second term in that position?747Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The honourable the Prime Minister spoke to me after the resignation of Speaker Halverson. I certainly considered that response very carefully and I am greatly honoured that the House has elected me to that position.747747Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, I am wondering if you could write to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development on my behalf to ask him to hurry up with an answer to question No. 2149, which was put on the Notice Paper on 26 August 1997.747Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall write to the minister accordingly.74710001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:747158R36 KL6 PG6Albanese Anthony MP; Andren Peter MP; Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales notes with concern the impact of the policy of charging entry fees—often resulting in the sale of the family home—for people needing nursing home care.Furthermore, the petitioners note with concern the impact of the policy of charging residents of aged care facilities an extra daily fee which provides no additional benefit to the residents and is nothing more than a disguised Government tax.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all who need it and further that the family home is exempted from any asset test relating to payment for such care.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Mr AlbaneseR36Mr Albanese(from 107 citizens)Mr AndrenKL6Mr Andren(from 11 citizens)Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 40 citizens)7471155A5 MK6Brown Bob MP; Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of Australia notes with concern the impact of the policy of charging entry fees—often necessitating the sale of the family home—for people needing nursing home care. Furthermore, the petitioners note with concern the impact of the policy of charging residents of aged care facilities an extra daily fee which provides no additional benefit to the resident and is nothing more than a disguised Government tax.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all who need it and further that the family home is exempted from any asset test relating to payment for such care.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr Robert Brown5A5Mr Robert Brown(from 81 citizens)Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from 34 citizens)74715PG6 AE4Macklin Jenny MP; Nehl Garry MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain pensioners, superannuants and retirees points out to the house that Government funding for the Australian Pensioners' and Superannuants' Federation's national secretariat will cease on 30 September 1997. The Federation provides advice to the Government on older people's needs and concerns, publishes independent information for older people and works to ensure that older people have a say in decisions that affect their lives.Your petitioners therefore ask the house to direct the Government to provide funding to ensure that the Australian Pensioners' and Superannuants' Federation can continue its valuable work for and with older Australians.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from seven citizens)Mr NehlAE4Mr Nehl(from eight citizens)747164BV5Adams Dick MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of residents in Derwent Valley in Tasmania draws to the attention of the House to the troubles they have been having with their television reception due to changes from VHF to UHF, aggregation and the subsequent building of the tower on Mt Wellington. Residents had spent large sums of money on new antennae to receive signals on the changeover. When the new tower started to transmit, it required adjustment and different antennae and still no resolution to the problem. Now they have to wait again until another translator is put into restore reception, despite having paid out thousands of dollars.Your petitioners therefore request the House to have the National Transmission Authority install the last translator as a matter of urgency and that all costs incurred by residents on additional equipment be refunded.Mr AdamsBV5Mr Adams(from 164 citizens)74815ET4Bevis Arch MPA Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.This petition of certain residents in the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House the harsh and regressive decision by the Howard Government to allow telecommunications carriers to charge timed local calls for data communication services such as electronic mail, facsimile, the internet and other on-line services. This measure will adversely effect business and individual users of the above services, and particularly hamper the operations and growth of small business.Your petitioners call on the House to request that the Howard Government rescind their decision, and ensure local data communication services are charged on an untimed basis.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 15 citizens)748368FT4Bradford John MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned constituents of the electorate of McPherson urge the House to:(1) place a high priority on the construction of the Tugun bypass west of Coolangatta Airport on the Gold Coast to ensure its completion before the Year 2000, and to take the lead in arranging joint funding between the NSW, Queensland and Commonwealth Governments; and(2) impose a curfew to ensure no jet aircraft depart from or land at Coolangatta Airport between the hours of 10.00 pm and 6.00 am.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to urge the Federal Government to act urgently upon these matters.Mr BradfordFT4Mr Bradford(from 368 citizens)748318FT4Bradford John MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned constituents of the electorate of McPherson urge the House to impose a curfew to ensure no jet aircraft depart from or land at Coolangatta Airport between the hours of 10.00 pm and 6.00 am.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to urge the Federal Government to act urgently upon this matter.Mr BradfordFT4Mr Bradford(from 318 citizens)748215MF4Cobb Michael MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House that we strongly disapprove of the new firearms laws and associated regulations. We believe the laws unreasonably restrict the lawful activities of law abiding firearm owners and that the laws will have a negligible effect on the misuse of firearms within the community. Your petitioners request the House encourage the States to repeal these unjust laws and regulations and ask the House to enter into talks with representatives of firearm groups to formulate more effective and amiable firearm laws.Mr CobbMF4Mr Cobb(from 215 citizens)7484187T4Crosio Janice MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain citizens of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House their serious concerns at the proposal to build an airport at Badgery's Creek. Your petitioners respectfully request that the project not be proceeded with and that any such airport be built outside the Sydney Basin.Mrs Crosio7T4Mrs Crosio(from 418 citizens)748128MK6Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the widespread opposition which exists in western Sydney over the planned development of a 24 hour international airport at Badgerys Creek; the damage to people's health and quality of life that will accompany such a development, and the Federal Government's failure to seriously re-examine other alternative and more suitable sites for an airport outside the Sydney basin.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House requests the Federal Government to discontinue its plans to build Sydney's second airport at Badgerys Creek and that it immediately begins a serious re-examination of the suitable airport sites outside the Sydney basin.Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from 128 citizens)749378K6Fitzgibbon Joel MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of residents in the Hunter draws to the attention of the House the impact of the Howard Government's changes to the arrangements for older Australian's needing Nursing Home care. Your petitioners oppose the following changes implemented by the Federal Government:New Nursing Home entry feesAn increase in residents charges in Nursing HomesChanges in the way Government funds Nursing Homes.Your petitioners therefore request the House to repeal these changes.Mr Fitzgibbon8K6Mr Fitzgibbon(from 37 citizens)74918ML6Grace Elizabeth MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concerns regarding the issue of the proposed new Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take immediate steps to reject the current form of the legislation which will:1. Bring into being a Therapeutic Goods Act that will severely curtail fair competition by restricting permissible statements in advertising that far exceed the restrictions imposed on any other sector of private enterprise.2. Set up a system by which even unwitting offenders against the Advertising Code will have no legal recourse and can be effectively prevented from trading.3. Limit the right of citizens to make fully informed choices in selecting health care options from the range of traditional and alternative therapies available.Mrs Elizabeth GraceML6Mrs Elizabeth Grace(from 18 citizens)74923DH4Hollis Colin MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of NSW draws to the attention of the House the fact that Adult Migrant English Services (AMES) funding from DEETYA is being abolished this year and that DIMA funding for AMES is no longer guaranteed. AMES provides high quality English language and literacy tuition. These changes will reduce funding to AMES to less than half the level in 1995-96.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House restore public education funding for adult ESL to $150 million to give all Australians the language and literacy skills necessary for employment.Mr HollisDH4Mr Hollis(from 23 citizens)7492901EK6Jeanes Susan MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament.The petition of certain electors from the State of South Australia draws the attention of the House to the following.The desire of the people of South Australia to have legislation drawn and brought before the House to restrict the spending of all past and future Ex-Prime Ministers to no more than $1000-00 per week of taxpayers money on their privileges.Your petitioners therefore pray that the HouseIntroduce legislation to reduce the expenditure of past Prime Ministers to $1000-00 per week.Ms JeanesEK6Ms Jeanes(from 2,901 citizens)7491739PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House community anger over the backward stance of the current Federal Government on the environment. The decision to mine uranium at Jabiluka is a symbol of this government's preference for `development at any cost', and the failure of the government to set targets for greenhouse gas reduction has destroyed Australia's international reputation as a leader in environmental protection.Your petitioners therefore request that the House commit itself to greenhouse reduction targets before the Kyoto conference, and to reconsider the Jabiluka decision in the light of further environmental assessments.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 1,739 citizens)7491140PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House that there is an urgent need to implement a scientifically proven program which will permanently eliminate the increasing stress, crime and violence, inadequate health care, unemployment and economic problems as will as life threatening new developments such as Genetic Engineering, that are facing our nation. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House take the mounting body of proven scientific evidence seriously, which demonstrates a solution to these problems, and establish and maintain `A Group For a Government'. This is a group (or groups) of 7000 people, made up from either the Military, the Police, or the unemployed and retired. We request that these people are paid by the Government to learn a simple, effortless technique called Transcendental Meditation and the advanced TM Program which includes the dynamic practise of Yogic Flying. We also request that these people are given an on-going allowance to practise their TM program all together, twice daily in a group. This will enliven the very basis of governmental success by creating coherence in the collective consciousness of Australia, resulting in an end to our nation's problems.And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 1,140 citizens)750605PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThis petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes of policy on nursing homes—particularly the attempt to impose user charges on those needing nursing home care—whether these charges be in the form of upfront fees, periodic payments or extra daily fees.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all Australians on the basis of medical need alone.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 605 citizens)750159PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House decisions by the Howard Government affecting the price and availability of medicines.The decision to remove (delist) a number of drugs from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and also the decision to pressure people to switch to cheaper, older and less effective drugs, will disadvantage the less well off in our community who will not be able to afford the best most suitable drugs, the drugs their doctors have prescribed for them.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House recognises that these changes are unfair. We call on the Government to reverse these decisions immediately.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 159 citizens)750115PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House real concerns that the $1.50 charge placed by the Commonwealth Bank on over-the-counter withdrawals will hit older Australians hardest. Many older people, and particularly women, feel safer withdrawing their money over the counter and feel especially vulnerable using ATM machines. The new fees will make it more expensive for pensioners to bank and undermines their sense of banking security. Many feel let down by the Commonwealth Bank, having been loyal customers for many years.Your petitioners therefore request that the House act to find ways to apply pressure to the Commonwealth Bank to change its new policy, and to reduce the cost of over-the-counter withdrawals.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 115 citizens)75064PG6Macklin Jenny MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the State of Victoria draws to the attention of the House the deep concerns about the introduction of entry fees for nursing homes. The introduction of fees will mean two-tiers of nursing home care, one for the wealthy and one for older people on low incomes. It is unacceptable that many older people will have to sell their family home to pay for nursing home entry, something that would be unacceptable if applied to hospitals. Yet in many ways, nursing homes are very similar to hospitals in providing care for the frail elderly.Your petitioners therefore request that the House registers the widespread support in the community for the rejection of these fees, and anger at the lack of information and widespread confusion regarding their implementation.Ms MacklinPG6Ms Macklin(from 64 citizens)75076KK6McDougall Graeme MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the undersigned pensioners and citizens of Australia hereby call upon the Australian Government to cancel the new charges for entry into a nursing home by frail aged peoples of Australia and that a more equitable fee structure be formulated. We point out that over many years the Private Nursing Home Industry has distributed large profits to shareholders, neglecting the need to upgrade buildings and facilities. We further call upon the Government to publish the profits of the Private Nursing Home Industry, before tax, over the past five years.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to direct the Government to provide a system that ensures the frail aged Australians be free from the stress and strains of the huge environmental changes of lifestyle in entering a nursing home and the uncertainty of a better quality of life in their twilight years.Mr McDougallKK6Mr McDougall(from 76 citizens)75112485I4McMullan Bob MPTo the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House the fact that Nippon Meats owns abattoirs at Mackay and Merinda, one of which has been closed for more than six months and the other of which has been recently closed, leaving approximately 800 workers in the area without jobs.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:(1) Revoke export licenses for the Nippon Meat Abattoirs at Mackay and Merinda; and(2) initiate a review of foreign investment guidelines in Australia to ensure that multi-national companies investing in Australia are bound by a code of conduct which protects the interests of all stakeholders, and not just overseas shareholders.Mr McMullan5I4Mr McMullan(from 1,248 citizens)751254HI4Morris Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at the Howard Government's decision to close Belmont Medicare Office. The closure of Belmont Medicare Office will cause serious difficulty and hardship to the residents of the East Lake Macquarie area, especially to lower-income and less-able residents.Residents will no longer be able to get immediate cash refunds of doctors fees to enable them to purchase required pharmaceuticals from nearby pharmacies and will thereby be unfairly disadvantaged.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House call on the Howard Government to reverse its decision to close Belmont Medicare Office and to cease its dismantling of Medicare Services.Mr Peter MorrisHI4Mr Peter Morris(from 254 citizens)75131MK6Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:This petition of certain citizens of the State of New South Wales respectfully showeth our concern that: the Federal Government's childcare policies are reducing the quality of care and making it unaffordable; fees have risen by up to $25 at some services and families are being put under pressure trying to meet costs; the Government's cuts and changes to child care are forcing parents, often mothers, to reduce the hours they work or quit work altogether reducing family income and making it harder for families to meet weekly costs; the Government's changes are forcing some parents to choose unlicensed backyard care which could put our children at risk.Your Petitioners ask that the Parliament make the necessary changes to ensure child care is affordable, quality care that is meeting the needs of Australian families.Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from 31 citizens)75128MK6Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the House to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student places; cuts to Austudy and Abstudy and decreased Commonwealth funding for universities are denying students fair access to university education. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for Australians.Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from 28 citizens)7511492QK6Sercombe BobMPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThis humble petition of the under-signed citizens of the State of Victoria hereby object to the introduction of means testing and deeming for aged care people and further object to having to pay an accommodation bond. We therefore ask that the parliament repeal these Draconian measures immediately.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House takes note of this request.And your petitioners duty bound forever pray.Mr SercombeQK6Mr Sercombe(from 1,492 citizens)752253ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The residents of the State of New South Wales draw to the attention of the House:(1) That we the undersigned are affected by the long term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and associated airspace.The process by which planning decisions have been made was unjust.The redistribution of aircraft noise as a consequence of the plan is unfair and will continue to be unfair.Therefore, your petitioners request the House to:establish a commission of inquiry or a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of the plan including the part played (if any) by any of the senior members of the coalitiion government.(2) We support the action of the Mayor and Council of Concord in demanding that the new flight paths over the Municipality of Concord should cease immediately and the government honours its pre-election promise limiting the implementation of new flight paths.(3) Citizens of Concord demand that the federal government addresses its responsibility to provide for proper air services with minimal impact on residential areas.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 253 citizens)75268ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The residents of the State of New South Wales draw to the attention of the House:That we the undersigned are affected by the long term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and associated airspace.The process by which planning decisions have been made was unjust.The redistribution of aircraft noise as a consequence of the plan is unfair and will continue to be unfair.Therefore your petitioners request the House to:Establish a commission of inquiry or a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of the plan including the part played by senior members of the coalition government.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 68 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business75275215:24:00752Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—I move:That this House:(1) condemns the persecution of all religious minorities around the world;(2) deplores the long lasting plight of the Christian minorities in Turkey involving discrimination against those minorities to freely practice their religion and culture; and(3) requests the Government of Turkey, in the interests of secularism and respect for minorities to:(a) make it easier for all Christian denominations to be recognised as official churches and to have clear legal rights with regard to property ownership;(b) allow the opening of the Greek Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic seminaries which were forcibly closed in 1971 and permit other Christian denominations such as the Syrian Orthodox to have seminaries as well;(c) abolish the special tax imposed on Christian institutions;(d) preserve Christian monuments and cease the destruction or desecration of Christian churches, monasteries and other religious monuments;(e) provide more protection for the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox church in Istanbul and Armenian and Greek Christian churches in Turkey, against possible further attacks by Islamic extremists;(f) return to the Armenian Protestant Church all property that was taken from it including money that the Armenians were forced to pay; and(g) not interfere in the selection of church leaders or in the affairs of the Christian communities, in particular the operations of schools.I wish to bring to the attention of this House the discrimination and persecution of Christian minorities in the Republic of Turkey. This continuous abrogation of the most basic human rights is an appalling indictment on the Turkish government—a government which is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a member of the United Nations.Turkey's breaches of international agreements to respect and protect minorities are brazen and without shame. Historically this is linked to the incomprehensible denial by the Turkish government that the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in the early part of this century ever took place, despite compelling evidence to the contrary. Coupled with the killing and expulsion of 1.5 million Greeks, the Turkish government's track record on protecting basic human and civil rights is shameful and deplorable.Despite being a secular state since 1920, the Turkish government has abandoned the welfare of non-Muslim minorities. Early this century, Turkey was home to 12 million Christians. Today, barely 100,000 Christians are left. It was estimated in 1992 that some 60,000 were Armenian Orthodox and about 3,500 were Greek Orthodox.The honourable member for Barton (Mr McClelland), who in the spirit of bipartisanship will second this motion, has agreed to speak in detail on the plight of the Greek community in Turkey. I wish to concentrate on the continued harassment and humiliation of the Armenian community in Turkey. The Armenian community has settled in the rural and remote regions of Turkey. Their isolation from the world, and subsequently international scrutiny, has put them in a state of virtual servitude to their Turkish neighbours. At the turn of this century, some 2.5 million Armenians lived in their ancestral lands in eastern Turkey, where they established a rich and vibrant culture. This was annihilated in the horrific Armenian genocide of 1915-1922. Entire Armenian communities were transported to death camps in the Syrian desert. Many Armenians who were not executed in their homes and villages were forced to march to their deaths.Armenian males were conscripted into the Ottoman army and placed in labour battalions, where they were literally worked to death. Women, children and the elderly were rounded up and subjected to horrific atrocities. Some were raped, some were massacred and some were forcibly converted to Islam. For those lucky to survive, most were deported from their ancestral homes and exiled. When the genocide ended, 1.5 million Armenians had been killed and thousands more had been displaced. Every successive Turkish government has denied that this genocide ever occurred. In Ankara, there is even a mausoleum honouring the man who had the dubious honour of coordinating this mass extermination and deportation. The killings and deportations may have stopped, but the harassment and discrimination continues unchecked to this day.In the 1920s, in flagrant disregard of the terms of the 1923 Lausanne treaty to protect the rights of minorities, the Turkish government passed a series of laws specifically directed at the Armenian community. Those who had left their villages during World War I were forbidden to return and individuals were prevented from reclaiming property. Since the 1930s, literally hundreds of Armenian religious and cultural monuments in historic Armenian provinces in eastern Turkey have been destroyed, and the preservation of what remains as symbolic cultural artefacts prohibited.Although permitted to own property, a law passed in 1942 introduced a one-off tax on capital. After assessing property held by Armenians at greatly inflated values, many were forced to sell businesses and other assets to pay the tax. For those who could not raise sufficient money, a concentration camp awaited where many became ill or died. Today, a five per cent control tax is imposed on all minority-owned property, even though the law was officially repealed in 1980. A 1970s regulation in effect forbids most non-Turkish institutions from owning property purchased after 1936. This has led to the further confiscation of churches and schools without compensation.An Armenian child cannot attend an Armenian school unless the child has completed the previous year in an Armenian school. Discontinuing attendance results in exclusion, and the child must complete his or her education in a Turkish school. Only Armenian language classes can be given in Armenian, and all classroom inscriptions are in Turkish. Outspoken Armenians cannot become teachers or administrators in schools. Furthermore, an ethnically Turkish vice-principal is appointed to each school, and their consent is required by the Armenian principal for every suggested initiative.In the late 1980s, Armenian churches were closed for reasons of safety by the same authorities who refused to approve building repair applications. The Armenian church was denied a seminary in which to train clergymen, and the Turkish authorities have interfered in the election of Armenian church leaders. In another insidious form of ethnic cleansing, in a village in Erzurum a former Armenian church is currently being converted into a mosque. Only last Friday, reports were sent from occupied northern Cyprus that the Turkish government was intending to convert a former Armenian church into a hotel.Isolated acts of violence by individual Armenians and organisations outside Turkey in the 1970s and 1980s were seized on by the Turkish government to heighten anti-Armenian sentiment. A wave of hostility towards the Armenian community swept the country. Violent attacks on the Armenian Patriarchate, churches and schools became commonplace.The acts of intimidation perpetuated by the Turkish government have a clear purpose—to destabilise the core institutions of the Armenian and other Christian minorities. These communities are unsettled by continual attempts to undermine the ability of churches and schools to function properly. An air of uneasiness and disquiet has descended on these people. These constraints on their fundamental human rights have taken their toll on community and family life. And while 1.5 million Armenians can never be brought back, the international community has an obligation and a duty to protect Christian minorities living in Turkey and to guard against the risk that such atrocities may occur again.Mr Deputy Speaker, today in the gallery we are joined by a large number of representatives from the Armenian community in my electorate and from the Greek community all around Australia. I would like to welcome them here today because they, too, represent part of the protest at what the Turkish government is doing. As the representative in this House of the largest Armenian community in Australia, I can confirm the determination of this community to continue to place an international spotlight on the Turkish violations of human rights. We in the House of Representatives today join with others around the world, including the United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, in condemning the ongoing discrimination and harassment of Christian minorities in Turkey.The Armenian diaspora scattered around the world is living testament to the failure of the Ottoman Empire to exterminate the Armenian people. I urge my colleagues to consider the obligations we owe to communities who are suffering as the Armenians and the Greeks in Turkey are suffering and join with me in vociferously supporting this motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?15:32:00754McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I second the motion, with honour. I join with the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) in welcoming members of the Armenian and Greek communities to this House. It is an important matter, not only for their communities but also, as I frame my debate, for the entire world. Indeed, I should add that not only were there literally in excess of 1½ million Armenians murdered in the early part of this century, but among them were some 400,000 Greeks who were lost in that genocide. But these are things that the Turkish government must account for regarding past conduct. What we are looking at today is what they should be doing in the present day and age.After the Second World War, the international community realised that human rights extended beyond national boundaries. Indeed, the international community realised that there could not be world peace unless there was respect for fundamental human rights. So the nations which formed the United Nations gave attention, very early in the life of the United Nations, to very important treaties regarding fundamental human rights. We have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and, more recently, the European Convention on Human Rights. There are many others that affect this area but, univer sally, they focus on the rights of minorities. Those rights include the freedom of religion and the freedom to respect and uphold cultural identity.In terms of Greeks residing in Turkey, these were not the first treaties to apply. In 1923 the Treaty of Lausanne guaranteed a number of fundamental rights. Regrettably there is a significant creditability gap, however, between those signed and ratified treaties and the conduct that is displayed. Very recently, the Turkish Prime Minister is on record as saying that he is determined to end human rights abuses in Turkey. Motions such as this—and they are commonplace around the world—put him on notice that, increasingly, the international community is becoming impatient with that creditability gap between Turkey's pen and its actions in its own country.The motion raises a number of issues to which I will speak briefly. The Turkish government fails to recognise certain Christian denominations and, as a consequence, those denominations are unable to hold real property. Indeed, the ownership by churches which do hold real property is frequently the subject of ambiguity. Buildings are often arbitrarily confiscated without any compensation being paid. There is clearly a need for the Turkish government to recognise all Christian denominations and guarantee them the right to hold property.In 1971, as with the Armenians, the Turkish government closed the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology, which had existed since 1844. Because Turkish rule requires that the Patriarch and other clergy of the Greek Orthodox Church must be citizens of Turkey, that is a very serious problem indeed for the patriarchate. Because there is no long-term training facility for the clergy, there are no clergy from whom the patriarchate can draw. The hidden game of that strategy of cutting out the training base is designed to cause the extinction of the Greek Orthodox faith in Turkey. This motion justifiably calls for a reopening of those apostolic seminaries that were forcibly closed in 1971.The member for North Sydney spoke of the special tax of about five per cent on Christian institutions, which tax is not justified in any context other than that they are Christian institutions. Over the years, not paying that tax has resulted in countless abuses. Also, it has resulted in the confiscation of the property of those institutions that have been unable to meet the fee in a context where, as a result of intimidation and pressure, the populations of those churches are declining, thus making the burden of the taxation even more oppressive. The motion calls for the repeal of those taxes.Recent history has demonstrated at least apathy to, at worst positive encouragement of, the destruction and desecration of some Christian churches and monasteries and other religious monuments. In respect of the Greek Orthodox faith, there have been statues desecrated, and even cemeteries, to the distress of relatives, have been desecrated. While it may appear perhaps more trivial, the facts of the matter are that the authorities have used church buildings from the Greek Orthodox faith and, I have no doubt, other Christian faiths for quite inappropriate ceremonies within those hallowed buildings. That has been very much an affront to the those of the Greek Orthodox faith.The other way that the government is causing a decline in the significance of the religious institutions is to deliberately restrict the preservation of these buildings. They do this under the guise of a preservation order just as we have in many cities around Australia for the preservation of historical buildings of significance. But these preservation orders are framed in such a way that basic repairs and renovations to uphold and maintain the buildings have been prevented. Hence, decay is rapidly setting in. The motion calls for steps to preserve and maintain Christian monuments and buildings.The Turkish government has over the years boasted that the presence of the ecumenical patriarchate of the Orthodox church in Istanbul is an example of its racial and religious tolerance. But the facts of the matter are that it has failed to give that patriarchate its proper respect and indeed it has failed to give appropriate and proper protection. There have been riots in the vicinity of the patriarchate that have infringed on the property. Indeed, there was an attempt in 1993 to bomb the patriarchate. While those attempts were defused, it is quite clear that sufficient protection is not being given in a context where the Turkish government, through its propaganda, is evoking sentiments against the Greek Orthodox faith. The motion appropriately calls for proper protection for those Christian institutions.There are also instances, which Mr Hockey, the member for North Sydney, has referred to, where property and money have been confiscated. It is often done under more clever guises—for instance, saying that a road widening plan is going through an area and therefore properties are being confiscated on that false premise. Indeed, history has shown that the premise has been false because a road widening has not occurred. Again, that is another method of acquisition.The government itself has had a history of censoring and restricting proper administration. Again, the member for North Sydney spoke of arrangements in public schools whereby there is a dual principal arrangement so that one is appointed by the Turkish government and the books of the students are significantly censored, and whereby there is restriction on the teaching of Greek history and indeed the Greek language. That censorship applies to any newspapers espousing the Greek Orthodox faith. Many Australians would be quite astounded to know that even the candidates for the patriarchate have to be vetted by the Turkish government.This is a situation which is totally unsatisfactory in the modern world when we are two years away from the 21st century. The Turkish government is on notice. It cannot hope to have full admission to the international community until it gets its house in order in terms of these human rights abuses.15:41:00756Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—Today I rise to speak about the ongoing persecution of Christian minorities in Turkey. I would like to congratulate the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) on this motion. It is an important and timely issue, and I have received several letters of support for its contents from many Greek and Armenian people in Australia. I would also like to acknowledge representatives from the Greek and Armenian communities in Australia who are in the gallery. This is a very extended motion and unfortunately in the few minutes I have to speak to it I will speak only on (1) and (2), but I do support the whole motion.Too often we take for granted the freedoms we enjoy in Australia. We go about our daily lives without interference from our government. We freely choose our schools that our children attend. We practise religion freely. We own property and are promoted on the basis of our ability, regardless of our ethnic background or religious beliefs. For those of the Christian faith in Turkey, this is not the case. Turkish government interference with Christian communities is not new. It has been going on for centuries.Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, you may be aware that I am of Greek origin. I am a second generation Australian. But during the course of my early boyhood days when growing up I was always advised of and schooled in the atrocities caused by the Turks on Greeks in Turkey. In fact, most of the Australian Greeks who came in the early 1900s had to change their names in order to get travel documents to move through Asia Minor or either come to Australia, or go to America, England or wherever they wanted to go. For example, they abbreviated their names to get passports.When the island of Kastelorizo, where my forebears came from, was under Turkish control the children had to be schooled in secrecy in a monastery. In the monastery on top of the mountain on Kastelorizo there was a little passageway no bigger than the human body through which they were able to go into a very large cavern where they were schooled in the Greek religion and our culture.Interference with the Christian community by the Turkish government is not new. The execution of nearly two million Armenian and Greek christians between 1914 and 1922 brought home the extent to which the government would go to create `Turkey for Turks'. In 1974 the invasion of Cyprus by the Turks, taking away the rights of those Cypriot Greeks to practise their culture and their religion, was certainly something condemned by the United Nations at the time. Unfortunately, some 21 years later, that same situation exists—a disgrace that the Turkish community have obviously supported.Christians in Turkey now constitute only about 0.2 per cent of the population. Sadly, as the numbers of Christians in Turkey fall, it becomes easy for the government to restrict their lives. There are many contemporary examples of this restriction. In 1970 the ministry of education prohibited prayers in minority schools. In 1984 a law was introduced that prohibited the establishment of schools for the teaching of religion. The time allotted to religious education is also tightly controlled. I am told that Christians are assigned a Turkish Muslim principal for every Christian one as only Turkish Muslims, not Christians, can be recognised as government officials.The plight of Turkish Christians has often been overlooked as the world focuses on the persecution of the Turkish Kurds, who are fighting for a sovereign nation in the south west of the country. Turkey's Christians want to live in peace within the borders of Turkey. They do not ask for the overthrow of the Turkish government. They do not seek political sovereignty. All they ask for is the freedom to practise their religion in safety. This freedom is guaranteed by the Treaty of Lausanne signed in 1923, a treaty constantly ignored by the Turkish government.The Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe wrote to the Turkish Prime Minister, Mesut Yilmaz, on 24 February 1998 after a delegation visited Turkey, Greece and Cyprus to examine human rights in the region. The commission expressed concern over the continuing closure of the Halki seminary as well as, and I quote from their letter:. . . the situation of other minority religions or beliefs, including Armenian and Syrian Orthodox believers, as well as Roman Catholics, Armenian, Chaldean Greek and Syrian Catholics, and Protestants who face various forms of discrimination and harassment.I join with the international community in calling for the protection of Christian church es and institutions in Turkey. I commend the motion to the House.15:46:00757McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—The motion that the House is debating this afternoon is an important motion because it says something about our country as well as the country we are talking about, Turkey. The motion essentially asks us to condemn the persecution of all religious minorities around the world and particularly the effects that the Turkish government are causing to Christian minorities in Turkey. Many people have come to this country from Turkey and from countries around it and are able, in this country, to share with people from all over the world their religious and political freedoms. In Turkey, that is not so.The Turkish government is, at this stage, actively working against Christians in a financial way and earlier this century did it in a most inhumane and murderous way in that two million people were marched off and killed and whole communities were uprooted. Communities that had been living around the Bosphorus and the Black Sea for hundreds and hundreds of years were just obliterated. A whole culture was obliterated, and this was done by the Turkish government.Turkey, as my colleague the member for the Northern Territory (Mr Dondas) said, has forgotten nothing and learnt nothing. In 1974, as he said, they invaded the island of Cyprus and started to do the same thing—moved people out, killed people and desecrated churches. There are still icons being sold on the international market which have been plundered from churches in northern Cyprus. Churches in northern Cyprus have been turned into barracks and have been turned into living quarters.What the Turkish government did in Turkey they are now doing in northern Cyprus, and this is a country that expects to become part of the European Union shortly. Turkey is a member of NATO. Turkey is a country that puts its public face forward as a Western liberal democracy but beneath that public face there is a murderous anti-social, anti-Christian attitude. One does not expect that Turkey should become pro-Christian; one just expects that Christians in Turkey should have the same rights as people of the Islamic faith have in other Western countries.What we are asking for is that people have the same rights—that Christians in Turkey should have the same rights that Turkish people have here in Australia. That is not asking much. I think, as I am sure my colleagues do, that this parliament should have a point of view on that, that the Australian people, through their representatives here, should say that. While it is not normal that we have a vote on matters of private members business, I think today on this matter we should. So that we can do that, I move:That the question be now put.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—There being more than one voice calling for a division, under standing order 193 the division is deferred until the conclusion of the grievance debate.75815:51:00758Brown, Bob, MPMr ROBERT BROWN5A5CharltonALP00—I move:That this House:(1) expresses its absolute disgust at the worsening industrial relations climate throughout Australia as a number of foreign owned companies and their maverick Australian subsidiaries seek to use the Howard Government's workplace relations legislation to confront, intimidate and harass Australian workers and their spouses and children and to threaten the viability, stability and peace of Australian communities;(2) deplores the gross and unconscionable behaviour of the American owned Atlantic Richfield Company for sacking all of the workers at its Gordonstone mine in Queensland with the intention of re-opening the mine with scab labour on individual contracts;(3) calls on Rio Tinto to halt its continuing provocation against its employees at Hunter Valley No. 1 Mine and their spouses and children and seek to approach industrial relations in a more civilised and co-operative way;(4) urges all respectable and responsible Australian firms to reject the behaviour of the mavericks and renegades whose offensive assaults on decency in the industrial relations system will cost Australian industry and the general community dearly;(5) encourages all Federal and State industrial tribunals to utilise the laws, conventions and facilities available to them to demand that employers enter into genuine negotiations with unions and seek to achieve honourable settlements, arbitrated if necessary;(6) demands that the Howard Government act immediately and decisively to halt the frightening trend towards the intrusion of potential violence in our approach to industrial relations;(7) expresses its unqualified support for the courageous workers and their families who have been forced to put themselves in the front line of sacrifice to protect the rights of all workers; and(8) calls on all Australians who value and respect our great traditions of fair play, mateship, collective action and civilised relationships to reject the intrusion of un-Australian behaviour into Australia's industrial relations system.Let me say at the outset that I am proud to move this motion. I am not pleased though that the motion needs to be moved. I also want to take this early opportunity to thank so many of my colleagues who have sought the opportunity to be included in this debate so that they could support it. I refer particularly to the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), within whose electorate Hunter Valley No. 1 colliery is located. He and I joined those striking coalminers at Hunter Valley No. 1 at the picket line. He has indicated his support for them, for their objectives, and for their union and in no way has ever abandoned them.I notice that the two government members who are to speak on this motion are the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin). Let me say that the member for Paterson has constituents employed at Hunter Valley No. 1. I hope that neither he nor the member for O'Connor take the opportunity to malign, misrepresent or ridicule those coalminers at Hunter Valley No. 1. I hope as well that the member for Paterson does not betray them. But I will live in hope.There is no more important question, to my mind, that can come before the parliament. As I say, I have been proud to move this particular motion. I am delighted that the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) will be speaking in support of it as well. Every one of the important issues that could come before this parliament involves questions of decency, equity, fair play, proper standards, proper processes and just outcomes.Good governments are supposed to act as moderating and civilising influences to equalise the balance between otherwise unequal members of the community, to redress injustice, to provide safety nets, to respect the dignity of individuals and to enact laws which are socially responsible and morally defensible. This government fails by any measure on all of those counts.There are numerous examples of ways in which this government has been supporting the operation of rogue multinational corporations in Australia which have taken the opportunity to attack traditional industrial relations processes, to attack unionists and to attack unions. We have had some local examples. For example, the present government defended the Tweed Valley Fruit Processors when they sought the opportunity for employees to trade off their sick leave.At Weipa, this coalition government supported CRA, which, of course, is another name for Rio Tinto, which discriminated between employees doing the same work. They wanted to pay non-union labour, contract labour, a greater amount for doing the same work as unionists until the Industrial Relations Commission indicated that that was illegal and was not allowed. But this coalition government and its spokesman, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith), supported it.At the port of Cairns, we had the government encouraging Freeport to use scab labour to load and unload its ships. Last year, the government was forced to admit that it was involved with about 20 serving army personnel being trained in Dubai to act as strike breakers and to act as non-union scabs on the Australian waterfront. We have the present provocations involved at Webb Dock with Patrick stevedores and the National Farmers Federation.It was just October last year when the foreign owned Atlantic Richfield Company, known as Arco, sacked its entire work force at the Gordonstone Colliery in Queensland to take them back on as non-union scab labour on individual contracts. We know now that Arco at the Gordonstone mine in Queensland employed 50 armed security guards. Those guards patrolled the streets. They tailed the cars of unionists. They took photographs of families. They frightened the wives and kids of unionists. Workers were sacked by that company and then evicted from their homes. All that type of thing is becoming commonplace.Rio Tinto, of course, is a foreign company, a transnational, which seeks to destroy the protection of workers provided by trade unions. It is doing this wherever it operates right around the world. It is not only supported by this government but also nurtured, encouraged and assisted by this government. It has used threats and intimidation. It has used misrepresentation. It has used abuse and provocation against its own employees. Rio Tinto is a rogue corporation in Australia with a thug mentality.At Hunter Valley No. 1 there has been an avalanche of disgraceful acts committed against coalminers, their wives and their children, at the behest of the owner, Rio Tinto. Only seven of 430 employees accepted individual contracts in the face of provocation, intimidation, bribes, insults, threats, betrayal, whispering campaigns and court action. The union members have stood firm and their wives and children have stood with them and stood by them.Allan Davies, the mine manager, kept issuing newsletters which were clearly designed to inflame and provoke the union members. They contained distortions and lies. He was spoiling to provoke the union into acting illegally, but the union kept its cool. In August last year, the Industrial Relations Commission recommended that changes to work practices be deferred until a negotiation period was completed. The mine management ignored it. In November, the IRC also recommended that no changes be made to work rosters. Again, the mine management ignored it. The mine management also threatened to sack half the work force from Hunter Valley No. 1 and its sister mine at Mount Thorley. It implied that workers on individual contracts would keep their jobs.Rio Tinto instructed management at Hunter Valley No. 1 not to offer work or orders to 12 Newcastle and Hunter Valley firms which it claimed did not support it during the disputes. The memo said in part:In all cases, there are a number of alternative suppliers already approved for use at Hunter Valley. Wherever possible, please do not use the below mentioned suppliers.Then it went on to list a dozen of them. As I said, women and children have been stalked by the agents of these companies. They have been followed in motor vehicles. Cars have gone past their homes photographing the wives and the kids. The kids have been frightened by it, and this is what is being supported by this government and by this minister. It is an absolute disgrace. It is against all the principles of decency and all the traditions of trade union processes that exist in Australia, and this government seeks the kudos for the sorts of things that it has been guilty of.Because of the potential damage to the New South Wales economy by that continuing dispute, the New South Wales Premier asked that the matter be arbitrated by the Industrial Relations Commission. Alan Boulton indicated that he was prepared to arbitrate, but what did the minister for industrial relations in this national coalition government say? He said, `Let them fight it out. There will be no arbitration. Let them fight it out. Let them go for the throat.' That has not existed since the system of arbitration and conciliation was introduced at the beginning of this century, and that is what Mr Reith has sought to put into place.Rio Tinto has sought to bankrupt its workers both financially and emotionally, and it did so with the support of this government and this minister. The Newcastle Morning Herald, for example, in connection with that matter, said in an editorial on 2 October last year:It is all very well for politicians who are paid from the public purse to sit back and let powerful company and union forces slug it out brutally in a winner-takes-all encounter.That might satisfy a particular political agenda but it ignores the welfare of people caught in the middle of a dispute—and surely a key role of government is to look after the welfare of the nation and its communities?Yes, indeed. That responsibility should be honoured and pursued by governments, not ignored by them.Before anyone rushes to judgment on the side of the anti-union provocateurs and strike breakers, let them visit the United Mine Workers union office in Aberdare Road, Cessnock, and examine the 1,532 names of men and boys killed in the coal mines of the Hunter Valley; and, to those, we can add at least the names of the four miners who drowned in the Gretley mine in November 1996. It is left to the unions, like the CFMEU and the MUA, and the union leaders, like John Maitland and John Coombs, to protect unionists and to continue the traditions of unionism. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—I have great pleasure in seconding the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:01:00760Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—The motion that we are debating at this time, which was moved by the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), commences with the words:That this House:(1) expresses its absolute disgust at the worsening industrial relations climate throughout Australia—For whom? For the 140,000 Australians who have got a job in recent times? For the extra five per cent of people who can now apply for a job because, the ANZ Bank tells us, job advertisements have grown by that much? Is that an industrial relations problem for them? Isn't it a fact that, because people are becoming more employable and do not have to have a ticket to get a job, there are a lot of people starting to get employment and they think the industrial relations system is pretty good?I will tell you who has got a little worried, firstly, about their job prospects and, secondly, about their power and influence. The member for Charlton's speech was not about protecting workers and their children; it was about protecting the rights of union bureau crats. Isn't it interesting that last week we had a few people from the MUA come and visit? They are a pretty struggling lot! One bloke had two Montblanc pens in his pocket. I have got one, but I doubt I could afford the second one. It must be a pretty good job. You wonder why they are fighting by the death to keep it.Let us face it: this speech is not about people getting jobs or people having good employment conditions. All of those can be clearly specified in a workplace agreement. It is about keeping people in work and creating an opportunity in Australia for those who have not got a job to get one.I reminded the MUA people the other day of the circumstances that we all confront today in Australia. Australians' point of view about living standards is that we should have Australian wages and we should have Australian working conditions—and I support that—but the other side of the equation is that they believe we should have Chinese prices at K-Mart. The Chinese in their country, the Japanese in theirs and the Europeans in theirs have exactly the same attitude. They are not worried about Hunter Valley No. 1 mine. They are not worried about one of these other places. They have three questions when they decide whether people will stay in employment in Australia. They want to know how good, how soon and how much.If the proprietors of a particular coalmine—and please remember that Rio Tinto, which we have now converted to this monstrous international organisation, is a partner with CRA, a genuine, dinki-di Aussie company, and I think the chief executive, admittedly now residing in London, is an Aussie, too—cannot answer those questions, the simple fact is that the buyers go somewhere else. There is no law in Australia that demands that you have to go broke.I deal with a lot of working people and, in all my life, I have probably had more contact than a lot of people who occupy the back benches over there. I served beer for 30 years in my own pub and, if you think that is not a way to get contact with the working people, then think again.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—That's where you used to wield the iron bar.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Yes, that was there, too, and I make no apologies at all for that. But the reality is that those people—particularly in the north-west, when the roads were too rough for the union blokes to come up and collect their dues—usually seemed to get pretty good arrangements with their bosses, and most of them were for amounts of money that were well and truly above what they might have got under an award.I heard the member for Charlton bemoaning the fact that the people at Rio Tinto and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) did not want arbitration, even when Premier Carr wanted it. Gosh, I have a good recollection of history and I would like 50c—not even a dollar—for every time the Industrial Relations Commission, or whatever its various names have been, arbitrated a dispute somewhere around Australia and the union bureaucrats said to the commission, `Stick it up your nose. We're staying on strike.' They used to take no notice whatsoever of what the Industrial Relations Commission said. Now, because there are a few changes to the rules and the goalposts have been squeezed a little closer together, suddenly they want arbitration.The real problem is getting Australia right. We have got to protect our good living standards and we have got to take some quantum leaps. We know what wages are in parts of the world, but they are not nearly as cheap as we think they are simply because, frequently, the productivity of the people getting a pittance is extremely low. They are not nearly as competitive as we might think.In that context, I asked the seamen present with the MUA the other day if they could consider a situation where they could man ships at less expense but maintain their wages, or where ships had family accommodation on board so they could go to sea for longer periods but had their family on board and probably their partner employed on board. It was interesting because they started to say, `What about our kids' education?' That is a relevant question, but I pointed out that, where I was in the north-west of Western Australia, people had to find out in gaining employment how to fix that, so they took extension—DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—What about the cost?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—It might be a lot cheaper. That is a good question, but nobody has ever thought of it. You are exactly the same. You want to be in government one day, but the first time someone stands up and says, `Is there a better way to make Australian shipping competitive so twice as many seamen have a job?' you start finding reasons that it will not work.That is silly, because it is all a cost-benefit analysis. You start saying there is this problem and that problem. One bloke asked, `Take my kids to sea?' I said, `I read all the time about little kids going around the world in someone's yacht.' I would not recommend it, but the realities are that there are options. I give you an example and it might be a poor one—YU5TANNERMr Tanner—Have you been on a ship lately?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—There you go. Don't try to be progressive, don't try to lift Australia into a position where we would be the great seafaring nation we should be; just put up the shutters and complain about the intimidation of poor old trade unionists. There is not one trade union bureaucrat who is not on as good a salary as we are getting here.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—That's rubbish.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Don't tell me about it.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—My salary doubled to come into this joint. That's absolute lies.YU5Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—You mustn't have been very highly regarded amongst your colleagues. You probably got what they reckoned you were worth. Let me tell you about it in terms of Webb Dock.YU5TANNERMr Tanner—I was the lowest paid in my organisation on 39 grand a year. That's absolute lies.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEY—Come on, don't be silly. If you cannot cop a bit of shot in this, you're a kid—and that's not a bad description either. But the realities are that when we get to this point of efficiency we get told that this is all intimidation. We actually have a stevedoring company that wants to rent a bit of its available space to somebody else, and that is a conspiracy! How stupid can you get! Every day of the week someone rents something to somebody else. In small business, people take over someone else's business and they say, `I'm sorry, I don't need any of your staff. Take them with you.' We do not have pickets—we do not have that.The one surviving bastion of trade union bureaucracy, the MUA, is under threat. That is what you are standing up here arguing about—not the rights of workers. They are getting jobs. The more efficient our country is, the more jobs we will have and the more we will have at the wages that people get today. But, if we do not match the efficiency and the productivity per hour of our competitors, do not think anybody else in the world is sympathetic to our needs. They want to buy their own products for a start, and they will buy in the cheapest and most efficient market.Let me close on this point about the waterfront: the big cost is not only in moving containers but in shipping freight. We are rated as a war zone, because half the competitive shipping companies of the world refuse to come to Australia. I have had actual examples put to me of where people lost contracts in that fashion. (Time expired)16:11:00762Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I rise in total support for the motion moved by my colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown). We on this side have never been fooled by the flowery words which surround the introduction of this government's workplace relations legislation. This legislation has never been about improving productivity, or establishing positive working relationships between the boss and the worker at the workplace, or ensuring the delivery of the rock solid guarantee that no worker would be worse off or lose any take home pay. For the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the world of industrial relations—an obsession of decades—has always been about attacking trade unions, their membership, their wages and conditions of employment.This legislation has substantially shifted the balance of the employment relationship in only one direction—in favour of the bosses. The government's industrial relations agenda is about protecting bosses who want to mug the workers. Industrial relations in Australia are beginning to sink into a state of civil war. We have confrontation, division, intimidation, harassment—and all supported, encouraged, aided and abetted by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) and every member who sits on the government side.Throughout Australia, conservative governments have introduced legislation which allows ordinary workers to be mugged by employers because of the diminished role of awards and independent conciliation and arbitration, collective bargaining rights and court sanctioned prosecution to intimidate unionists from taking legitimate industrial action. The honourable member for Charlton has already mentioned the disputes in the Hunter Valley and Gordonstone. We can also add the disputes in Melbourne at Webb and East Swanson Docks to indicate this slide into chaos.The Illawarra has not escaped the dogma of confrontation, now a dominant feature of a boss's industrial relations strategy. On Friday, 30 January, workers at the New South Wales Grain Corporation's Pivot facility at Port Kembla finished their shifts as they had done over the last two years. I wish the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) was in here to listen to this. On Monday, 1 February they arrived at work, as we all do, but in their case they discovered that they had been replaced by other workers. There was no warning, no notice provided and in the end they had no jobs—they were sacked.It is interesting to note the company which provided the replacement workers. It is none other than the infamous Drake International, which has been granted an enormous slice of the employment services market by this government. No wonder those on that other side support them.Over the last 12 months, the Pivot workers and their union, the AWU, have been involved in negotiations to establish an enterprise bargaining agreement at the Pivot site. There was nothing outrageous in their de mands—just basic working conditions: a 38-hour week, overtime payments after eight hours work and continuity of employment.The Pivot workers did not go on strike during the negotiations, the AWU did not impose bans and the company had no complaint about the workers or their performance. But they were all sacked on 1 February, locked out of their jobs and replaced by scabs—scabs!—supplied by Drake International. The Grain Corporation has defended its action by saying that the four workers it had employed were only casuals and that negotiations to establish an enterprise agreement were taking up too much of the management's time.Can you believe this? Workers were sacked because management at Pivot—and this is the opposition's industrial relations policy—could not find the time to negotiate an agreement which is encouraged by this legislation. If anyone deserves sacking, it is the incompetent Pivot management. Since 1 February, workers, their families, their union and their supporters, including me, have established a peaceful protest line outside the Pivot gate—and this is now the sixth week. These four sacked workers joined the workers at the Hunter Valley, Gordonstone and the docks in the front line to protect the rights of all workers which the Howard government is prepared to see destroyed.Last week, I was informed that a woman admitting to being an employee of the Office of the Employment Advocate had been visiting the protest vigil daily and undertaking video and other surveillance activities there. I have put a question on notice to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business about the matter and I look forward to his response. Industrial relations in this country is turning ugly—and all to fulfil the Howard government's manic hatred of the trade union movement. But the trade union movement has seen such attacks before, as have workers, and the Labor movement will continue to struggle and fight, as it always has, to protect the rights of workers against conservative governments and the bosses they harbour and protect. (Time expired)16:16:00764Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—Concerning the opening comments by the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) about who was speaking here, I am just sad that they did not have enough trust or support to put the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), who has Rio Tinto in his electorate, up to speak on this motion. I can only presume that the member for Charlton is launching his own personal crusade and subtle dig in the ribs, as an exiting MP, to Cheryl Kernot, the former senator, who obviously opposes him outright on this very issue. I remind this House that it was Cheryl Kernot who, after all the details of the Workplace Relations Act were explained, voted 100 per cent in support of the legislation. Indeed, I remind members opposite, as perhaps they rub shoulders with Cheryl Kernot at the next Labor Party meeting, that it was discussed and amended to suit her. So we know we have her support.I suppose the one thing that we will see, now that Cheryl has gone over to the opposition side, is that she will convert, as she is the shadow minister for baby boomers, all of those people over there—all union officials and not a small business person amongst them—and tell them what it is like to be in business and that they should support this legislation, which brings about the right between unions and the workplace to come to some sort of agreement without government interference.Last week, I had a phone call in my office from a miner who thought that the government was closing down a coal mine. I said, `Why do you think we are closing down a coal mine?' He said that he had heard on the radio that the government was closing down a coal mine. I said, `That's not quite so.' He said quite clearly something which sticks in my mind, that is, `All I want, as a worker in a coal mine, is for the government to stay out of an issue between the union and the company. It's about time they were both grown up and mature enough to see what is in the best interests of all Australians and their own individual needs and bring about a resolution on that basis.' As I said, it was, after all, Cheryl Kernot, as the then senator and Leader of the Democrats, who saw the absolute logic behind an overhaul of Australia's industrial relations system as the central plank to our government's goal of restoring and sustaining a strong, growing, competitive economy—growth that is delivering net benefits to all of the people of the Hunter.This is illustrated by the facts from the Hunter Valley Research Foundation—that, in the year ending December 1997, the Hunter experienced a rate of jobs growth of five per cent, some 12 times the state average. Its business indicator survey pointed to a 10 per cent growth in Hunter business activity for the final quarter of 1997. As I said, it was Cheryl Kernot, now the Labor candidate for Dickson and self-appointed shadow minister for baby boomers, who correctly recognised that the Workplace Relations Act was, at the end of the day, about industrial evolution, not about a revolution of the kind that the honourable member for Charlton would have us believe. I was disappointed to hear the honourable member for Charlton claim that Minister Reith had said, `Let them rip each other's throats out.'5A5BROWNMr Robert Brown—He did.DH4HOLLISMr Hollis—He did.LL6Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWIN—Mr Reith would not say that. What he would say is, `Let them work it out.' The problem is that those opposite come from a background of industrial violence, such as we saw on Webb Dock, where a rock was thrown through the window of a bus transporting people rightfully entering a workplace, and such as we saw here—union controlled and excited by members opposite—at the front doors of Parliament House, the house of democracy.The Workplace Relations Act—the new era of industrial evolution that has come to this grand piece of legislation—is evolution for small business, evolution that echoes freedom of association, evolution that outlaws closed shops and prohibits discrimination on the basis of membership or non-membership of a union, evolution that kills off secondary boycotts, evolution that provides a balanced system by putting the responsibility for wages and conditions, enshrined where practical in law, where they belong—in the hands of the employees and the employers. It is about time they both sat down to work it out and make a considered, responsible decision. (Time expired)16:21:00765Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I am delighted to rise in support of the motion by the member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), a motion which I happened to second. The member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin) has made reference to the fact that I was not one of the earlier speakers. But, of course, there are two aspects to this motion, one which relates to coal mining and one which relates to those under attack on the nation's wharves. It is more than appropriate that the mover of the motion, the member for Charlton, be given an opportunity to talk about the mines and the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis), in particular, be given an opportunity to talk about what is happening to the people he represents.What amazes me is the approach and the response of the member for Paterson. Unfortunately, I do not have the figures with me. I do not know how many of those of Hunter Valley No. 1 mine reside in the Paterson electorate, but I do know that 22 of those who were retrenched in December at the Mount Thorley mine reside in his electorate. I suggest that it would be much more than 22 at the Hunter Valley No. 1 mine. Miners at Hunter Valley No. 1 are writing to the Maitland Mercury and saying, `Why won't my member represent me? Why won't he stand in the parliament and defend me like he is paid to do? Why won't he stand up to Rio Tinto? Why won't he oppose these disgraceful acts they are perpetrating upon us?' There were 22 at Mount Thorley and I suggest at least 40 people at Hunter Valley No. 1. They want to know why the member for Paterson won't even return their phone calls. Do you know what they are told? They are told—LL6BALDWINMr Bob Baldwin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Hunter is misrepresenting a position, and I will take that up later. They have never made calls that have not been returned.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—There is no point of order.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—They are told that neither Hunter Valley No. 1 nor Mount Thorley reside in the Paterson electorate. But so what? The people who work there are being attacked by a multinational company and their representative in the federal parliament will not stand and defend them. All we have heard today is a lot of waffle that will do nothing whatsoever to assist the constituents of the member for Paterson who are under attack by a multinational company with one objective in mind—to slash and abolish the trade union movement in this country. The member for Paterson does not care about the implications for his own constituents. He does not care how many families in his electorate will be without an income as a result.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate765Question proposed:That grievances be noted.76516:24:00765Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HANSONBK6OxleyIND00—Following my briefing from the Treasury on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment last week, I read the latest draft of the MAI, which is available on the Australian government Treasury Internet site. Having read this latest document, my original concerns regarding the effects of the MAI on the people of Australia have been reinforced and remain as strong as ever.As it is not possible to download the text of the agreement from the Treasury Internet site onto a computer disk, it is very difficult and expensive to distribute the text of the treaty. Distributing the document is essential if the Australian people are to know what the government is negotiating and what that will mean for us all.Also, the decision to examine the MAI through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is but a part of the cover-up and will not result in the concerns of ordinary Australians even getting a hearing, let alone being taken into account. Fifteen of the 16 members of the joint committee will be appointed by the government or the opposition. We all know the Labor Party started negotiations on the MAI in May 1995. Both the coalition and the Labor Party have demonstrated their commitment to signing the treaty.Despite requests, I could not obtain a list of any Australian government exemptions to the treaty from the Treasury or any detailed information from the Parliamentary Library. My having to rely on the Internet for information on the MAI caused me to make contact with representatives of the Canadian parliament for help. These contacts, made in desperation, have been by fax, e-mail and phone, and began late last year. It is scandalous that a member of the federal parliament has to go to such lengths.My accusation of secrecy remains, and I put to the Australian people the question: if the MAI is so good, why is this government even now still keeping all the important parts secret? This is not an issue of national security, so why is there so much secrecy? What is it that the government does not want the Australian people to know?I will detail some of my specific concerns with the treaty. Equal treatment for multinationals may sound warm and fuzzy, but this will make it illegal for Australian levels of government to favour a local company over a foreign company. There are many good reasons why we should be able to discriminate in favour of Australian companies. For example, it will even be illegal for a local council to favour a local business over a foreign company for council work, or for deals to be negotiated with the understanding that money will stay in the community. Instead of the money and employment going into the local area, the work could be performed by foreign labour and the profits repatriated overseas, most likely untaxed.The subject of multinationals importing labour may seem unlikely, but just listen to this paragraph from page 16 of the draft MAI:No contracting party may deny entry and stay as provided for by this article, or authorisation to work as provided for by paragraph 1 (a) of this article, for reasons relating to labour market or other economic needs tests or numeric restrictions in national laws, regulations and procedures.The treaty allows multinationals to bring in their own employees and their families, and we will have to give their spouses a work permit. Will these foreigners also get access to Medicare and other social security benefits? We have enough unemployment without multinationals bringing in their foreign workers.As the Demtel man says, `But wait, there's more!' Under the MAI, no-one, not even the federal government, can attach conditions to foreigners who seek to establish themselves in Australia. For example, we will not be able to make a multinational use any Australian made components or domestic content. We will not be able to make a multinational establish a joint venture with any Australian company. We will not even be able to insist that multinationals employ any Australian people at all.Within three years of signing this treaty, we will have to enter into negotiations to roll back and remove any current Australian laws that the multinationals do not like. Any exemptions the government proposes will likely be worthless in future and we will be forced to repeal them. The question of whether taxation constitutes a form of expropriation is not at all clear. As it stands, the Australian Taxation Office has already told us multinationals pay little or no tax now. If this agreement is signed in its current form, we may never be able to correct the pathetic situation of multinationals paying virtually no tax.All levels of government in Australia are liable to be sued in the event of an infringement of multinationals' rights. Under the MAI it is compulsory for the government to enter into binding arbitration which will leave us, the Australia taxpayers, liable for damages and horrific fees. Under the protection from strife clause, the Australian people are also liable for any loss of profits resulting from a state of emergency. Just what exactly will that mean? As if this is not enough punishment for the innocent victims currently known as the Australian people, we will not be able to signal our wish to get out of the MAI for five years. After that, the treaty will continue in effect for another 15 years. The Australian people must be made aware that we will be bound by this draconian agreement for at least 20 years.Australia is currently very good to foreign investors and many, including me, would argue that we are too good and give too much away. We have many resources, we have a well-educated work force and we have fairly good infrastructure. Multinationals get the benefits of our natural resources, infrastructure, stable society and educated population without contributing. More and more Australians are becoming aware of these facts and they are getting angry and becoming tired of being used. It is time to make multinationals and foreigners pay their share of tax.It must be acknowledged that, whilst some foreign investment may be good, foreign control is not. It must also be understood the majority of foreign investment buys up existing profitable Australian companies and downsizes the work force. Much of what the government says about the benefits of foreign investment is simply a lie. Australia has relied far too heavily on foreign capital in the past, and we are now paying the price of high unemployment, a failing society and less ability to control our destiny. I maintain the MAI is largely being negotiated in secret, but it is not in the best interests of Australians and will benefit only the multinationals in their push for a single world economy. In its current form, the MAI will hand over vast powers to multinational companies which will plunder our country on their terms and then bill us for their time.Rather than relying forever on foreign capital, only worsening the situation, One Nation policies will reindustrialise Australia and embark on programs of self-sufficiency. We will create jobs in diverse industries and lift our living standards. In short, One Nation will arrest the social decay that it would seem is almost a government sponsored plan. The day of the ballot box is coming.76716:33:00767Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—I do not propose to use my time to respond too much to the previous speaker, the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson), but I want to make a couple of quick comments to her who, it seems to me, is indulging in her usual scare tactics. There is no secret plan at all. She herself admitted that she got the information off the Internet where the government put it. It is all out in the open. In terms of a treaties committee, the Joint Committee on Treaties already exists in this House and reports to this chamber. Nothing is concluded. If we do decide we want to sign such a treaty in some shape or form, it has of course got to go through a formal ratification process. What we have just heard is the usual farrago of scare tactics based on half-truths. I have to say that I am very disappointed that the member for Oxley continues to pedal this rubbish.Today I want to talk about a different subject. I want to talk about something that affects so many of our citizens in this country and is causing much angst and heartache, and that is the Child Support Agency. As you will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, something like 40 per cent of marriages in this country end up in divorce, many involving children. The subject of support for children is a very vexed and difficult one.I want to talk about the ineffectiveness of the Child Support Agency in so many ways, especially in relation to the non-custodial parent who is self-employed and uses that as a ploy not to pay maintenance. I would like to read a letter that I received late last year from a constituent. This is the first opportunity I have had to bring this up in the chamber. I will edit it to the point where I protect some privacy, otherwise I will read it to the chamber because I think it is very instructive. This is from a lady who says:As a concerned citizen I would like to point out an area of Taxation/child support laws that need urgent attention.I am a sole parent with two children aged 11 and 9 years. My ex-husband is a self-employed . . . accountant "claiming" an annual income of $21,000. He has operated a business in . . . for approx. 3 years, buying a parcel of clients for $35,000 and setting up an office. He repaid the loan of $35,000 within a year. He is aged . . . and I am . . . I am employed . . . as a state enrolled nurse working four days a week which includes Saturday between the hours of 9am and 3.30pm. My annual income is approx $20,000 including govt. payments.I recently applied for a child support review for an increase in child support but I was denied. I previously applied for reviews only to have my ex-husband vary the amounts of his income, which he did several times.For the review I supplied as my evidence the following—1/ A four page letter outlining my circumstances and need for an increase.2/ Copy of letter by investigative accountants which valued his business at $65,000 which of course my husband disputes.3/ Copy of legal sworn Statement of Income signed by my ex-husband—in which he admitted that prior to the divorce and the separation he had been earning $60,000 but, for tax purposes, had indulged in tax-splitting which made it look as if the wife had been getting $35,000. He admitted he had been earning $60,000. Suddenly and miraculously, he was only on $21,000 after the divorce. She goes on to say:The advice of the child support office was to pursue this case through family court. This advice is laughable when I am already living on a low income/poverty line.I am annoyed to think that this system seems to protect the self-employed person like my ex-husband. It seems to me that I now have no recourse to any relief.I would also like to add that my mother is financing me as the property settlement is also in dispute, sadly my father passed away in October of this year.My ex-husband "thumbs his nose" at the system because he can legally hide his true income by way of family or beneficiary trusts whilst the Australian taxpayer has to financially help his children by way of increased family payments.My children and I still live in the marital home and my ex-husband was ordered by the courts to pay spousal maintenance to cover most of the mortgage payments which only came into force in February `97, a year before this date my parents kindly paid the mortgage.There must be hundreds of other sole parents whose self-employed ex-spouses "hide" their true income which is legally protecting them and yet this system is allowed to go on without question. I believe that income-splitting is viable within a marriage or partnership but why aren't the circumstances looked at in detail when these same relationships break down?How on earth can justice be done when not one authority questions the system. This case shows that the system isn't working and I wonder if anyone "has a voice" to represent people like me?Mr Deputy Speaker, you and I and other members of this place have heard about these sorts of cases on many hundreds of occasions. I have been in this parliament for some eight years and this would be one of a couple of hundred such cases that have come to me in my electorate. We are well aware that it happens on a regular basis to other members.Doubtless, the officer from the Child Support Agency who reviewed this particular case acted in good faith and did his best. I am not having a go at the individual per se. My concern is with the system. Quite often, one hears how the non-custodial parent who has his own business, whatever the nature of that business may be, is able to so arrange his affairs that his taxable income is minimised. He can then use that as a way of avoiding paying child support because the Child Support Agency takes taxable income as the prime method of assessing any child support payments.I acknowledge that it is sometimes dangerous for us in this place to highlight individual cases, but I am simply using this case to give an example of how this is happening in an overwhelming number of situations. In recent times, we have heard a lot about non-custodial parents—and they are usually, although not exclusively, fathers—and the difficulties they face; how they often have to pay a lot of money to support their children and so do not have enough money to rebuild their lives and so on and so forth. There is no doubt that that happens on many occasions.Unfortunately, that only tends to happen when the non-custodial parent, the father, is in employment. If he is in employment, when the mother, who is the custodial parent in most cases, applies for maintenance then those wages can be garnisheed—in other words, the money is taken out of his pay and paid over directly. However, in the case where the non-custodial parent—and it can be a female as well as a male—is self-employed, he can arrange matters under the tax system to minimise the amount of pay, and so we cannot garnishee his income.My concern is that, although there have been a number of written reviews—a parliamentary report, and this House passed amendments to the Child Support Agency and family law legislation last year and other changes are to be introduced in the fairly near future—my concern is that the system is still not working in practice. For example, the written assessment from the review officer in this case, which I do not have time to read out, says that they do not only rely on tax information.However, in my experience, with the many cases that I have dealt with, if you put forward other information to the Child Support Agency, it almost never takes account of that; it only ever takes account of the taxable income. In the judgment in this case, the Child Support Agency complained that the information was supplied by the wife and that it could not take only her word. However, in this case, for example, the Child Support Agency was supplied with a legal document in which the former husband admitted the amount of money that he had been earning—but that was set aside.It seems to me that the Child Support Agency is not diligent enough in looking at individual cases and examining the evidence. In my experience, the Child Support Agency often does not accept or investigate the evidence that is provided to it. It is slow in the way it acts. It is unresponsive, and it seems to me that there is a lot that could be done, quite apart from legislative changes, in the management of the legislation. It is an area that causes a lot of heartache. It is obviously adversely affecting a lot of children and, in that sense, it is going to cause ongoing grief to an increasing part of our population.My constituent asked how things could change and whether anybody in authority was listening. I can only say that people in this parliament do listen. Most members here are well aware of these problems. It has been a vexed problem for a long time. As I said, there has been a comprehensive parliamentary report and several pieces of legislation and we will continue to address this problem. (Time expired)76916:43:00769Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Like the member for Aston (Mr Nugent), I do not want to use too much of my time responding to the words of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) as I have other things to get off my chest in the short time available to me. However, I will say that, unlike the member for Oxley, I believe that a net benefit for the nation will flow from signing the Multilateral Agreement on Investment.However, I believe that there is sufficient concern in the community and that sufficient questions remain unanswered to make us slam on the brakes. There is no rush, and that is why I support the call of the shadow minister for foreign affairs to have the agreement sent off to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Treaties. It is a simple request. I am also calling for that to be done before the agreement is signed.The member for Oxley talked about foreign capital. Where would we be without it? Where would we gain the money, given the lack of savings in this country, to exploit our abundance of natural resources, for example? We could not do it without the assistance of foreign capital. I do believe there are net benefits involved but, like in other areas such as agricultural trade reform, there are going to be winners and losers. I think the Australian public, given the level of concern out there in the electorate, are entitled to see the agreement exposed to the full scrutiny of this parliament and are entitled to have an opportunity to make submissions to that treaties committee before the document is signed.I want to turn to some important issues in my electorate. Since the razzamatazz launch of the government's new Job Network I have been trying to determine which section of the Australian community has been hardest hit by the Howard government since it was elected just two years ago—the aged, those living in rural and regional Australia, students, families or the unemployed. It is a difficult call. I believe time will show that certainly no group has been more disadvantaged than the unemployed, particularly since this latest announcement.I have also been wondering why it is that my electorate is consistently treated so shabbily. I continually and consistently arrive at the same conclusion—that is, that my constituents in Hunter are being punished, are being penalised, for having the audacity to return a Labor member. That is my conclusion.GT4TRUSSMr Truss—Lack of wisdom.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—I think they are fairly well informed, I respond to the minister at the bar table. I make another prediction now—that is, at the next federal election a few more will be returning Labor candidates. Indeed, it could be that there will be sufficient to give the Howard government a record—that is, to be the first government since the Scullin government not to be returned for a second period of office. That is the record you are about to match, Minister, as a result of the way you are steering this nation.I want to turn back to my own electorate, which as I said continues to be dudded for having the audacity to return a nasty Labor member. Let me turn to the work for the dole scheme, a scheme that I was not all that enthusiastic about. Given that every other labour market program had been gutted, one has no choice if you want to assist the unemployed in your electorate in terms of labour market assistance but to support the scheme now it is in vogue.My electorate has an unemployment rate quite well above the national average. Indeed, there are now 4,000 people unemployed in the Cessnock local government area compared with 3,000 when John Howard came to office. But of course he was going to fix unemployment. In particular he was going to fix youth unemployment. But we have seen that figure continually rise over his period in office.There is not one work for the dole scheme in the Hunter electorate. There is not one project in an electorate with an unemployment rate significantly above the national average. The member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) has seven projects in his government held seat, but not one project for Hunter.Let me turn to Natural Heritage Trust funding, the now infamous green rorts affair. The government claims that it is just a quirk in the statistics that all the government held seats are getting the money. It says that, because the opposition holds few regional and rural seats, it is only natural that we get less than what might seem our share under the Natural Heritage Trust funding.Let me deal with that. The Hunter electorate—surprise, surprise!—on the AEC's definition is a rural seat. What did it receive in Natural Heritage Trust funding? It got $329,000. It sounds like a lot of money, but what was the average for government held rural seats? Not $300,000, not $400,000, not $500,000, not $600,000, not $700,000, not $800,000, not $900,000, not $1 million, but $1.6 million. That is what was allocated to the average government held rural seat. Again, what was it in the Hunter? Just over $300,000.I can just see the big whiteboard in Senator Hill's office and, of course, Minister Anderson is in there with him. You have got the criteria. Does it meet the scheme's objectives? Yes. Is it efficient in terms of its allocation of funding? Yes. Which party holds the seat—government or opposition? I can see Hunter up there: yes, yes, big cross; you miss out. It got just over $300,000 compared with the $1.6 million going to government held seats.Let me turn to what I call the mother of all decisions. Let me turn to the most flawed piece of public policy I have seen since I have been in this place—that is, the government's new Job Network; the government's new plan to cater for the needs of the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed, in this nation.Let me illustrate how the Hunter electorate has been dudded once again. The electorate currently has three offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service. There is a very large office in Cessnock employing in excess of 10 people. After 1 April, we will have one Employment National office in Cessnock, which will employ three people, and we will have an office in Muswellbrook, which will employ one person one day a week.From now on, because no organisation other than Employment National got a contract in the Cessnock local government area, my constituents will have two choices. They are to get a Rover Motors bus to Maitland or Newcastle at a cost of between $6 and $16—these are unemployed people we are talking about—or to line up at Employment National where I expect they will have one case manager.Why didn't anyone get a contract in Cessnock? Because Northumberland Network—the organisation which has been doing it so well for so long, which has better outcomes than any other organisation in the Hunter—did not get a contract. Why didn't Mission Australia get a contract? Because they did not apply. They thought it was futile. They held Northumberland Network in such high regard that they did not believe any application was likely to be met with success. Therefore, no-one gets a contract. There will be no FLEX 3 in the Cessnock local government area, an area with significantly high unemployment rates. (Time expired)77116:53:00771McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I wish to grieve and raise the issue of Landcare groups around Australia and the allocation of Natural Heritage Trust funds. The opposition have been blatant in their political attack on this program. They have had misleading statements, misleading information before the parliament and in the media. It is a blatant political attack on this program, which they supported in government. The shadow minister for the environment, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Kerr), has been at the forefront, as has Senator Faulkner. Now the member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), who would never have been on a landcare project in the seat of Hunter, complains that he has not had any allocation of funds.The Natural Heritage Trust and the landcare programs are very much concerned with the community effort of Landcare groups in educating those groups and the farmers and providing a change of attitude in the rural community about environmental matters. The Natural Heritage Trust aims to bring salinity under control, to bring about a greater biodiversity, to clean up the seas, to bring about a control of eroded areas, to provide clean waters for the cities, to revegetate some parts of Australia that have had their vegetation removed over the last 100 years and to encourage those land-holders both in the rural and semi-rural areas to bring about better land practices. It is a partnership between the government and the land-owners to bring about results on the ground.Let me just say that I do not see any of the ALP's building better cities programs down in the electorate of Corangamite in the Otways, and I challenge any member of the ALP to draw a comparison. It is obvious that the building better cities program would be in the cities, not in the country. I challenge the member for Corio (Mr O'Connor) to answer that particular proposition, where he has had a building better cities program in that electorate compared with the Natural Heritage Trust programs in the electorate of Corangamite.I wish to draw the attention of the House to the outrageous attack on Mr Anthony Baillieu, who is known to me. He is a hands-on farmer who has spent a lifetime farming the land in a sustainable way. He wants to improve the environment. The attack by members opposite and by certain members of the media is completely outrageous and without foundation. They try to draw a connection between Mr Anthony Baillieu and the former president of the state division. That was refuted on 5 March, again giving lie to the outrageous allegations.A proposition was agreed by those people interested in environmental matters in Victoria to bring about the last remaining stand of grey box buloke grassland on the flat, mostly treeless plains. That was a proposition to look after that. I noticed in Saturday's Age there was another article which really refuted the opposition's claim. It was entitled `Heritage, honour and a native forest'. I can do nothing more but quote Dr Brian Whelan, head of Trust for Nature, an independent statutory authority set up to protect remnant native bush on private land in Victoria. This is what he had to say about this project, which the members of the opposition and the members of the media have so strongly attacked. He said:For the investment of $52,900 not only the state but also Australia has protected this prime area of box forest in perpetuity. It was a fantastic deal. To buy that land on the edge of Melbourne would have cost us millions.That is an independent commentator supporting the very good work that Mr Baillieu undertook on behalf of all Australians, especially those people who lived close to the city of Melbourne.There have been comments that the electorate of Corangamite has received a large number of projects. That is true, because in Corangamite there are a number of groups which have put forward propositions which have been accepted. The background is that landcare applications have been put forward by local Landcare groups, with farmers and local assessment panels involved. These assessment panels are made up of people with scientific background and judgment on these matters, who then put these projects in priorities. They are then submitted to the state assessment panel. The bush care program, for instance, had 80 applications in Corangamite and four in the seat of Corio. So how can anyone deduce that Corio is disadvantaged when they put in no application in the first place?Could I draw to the attention of the House that there was no local member involvement in the specific priority assessment. Only at the time the projects were announced were local members informed as to who had achieved a project and who had not achieved a project outcome. So the projects in Corangamite have had support of Landcare groups, local government, state government and the federal government under the Natural Heritage Trust. They have brought about some wonderful projects in the Woady Yaloak area. There is the Moorabool clean-up program and the Thompsons Creek special project that I will speak to in a minute.There is the Mia Mia project, which I inspected only a couple of weeks ago. The Victorian Landcare autumn edition talks about the Mia Mia project. One article is entitled `Mia Mia project helps Lake Murdeduke'. This was initiated by the Leigh Landcare Group, with assistance from funds from the Natural Heritage Trust and the Corangamite Salinity Fund. The salt affected land had been brought about by continual pressure from grazing. The drainage became salt infected, and the water quality moving into the Ramsar selected Lake Murdeduke was increasing in salt.Nineteen land-holders along the 30-mile Mia Mia Creek joined together to bring about a revegetation of the creek and to increase the wildlife. Thirty-thousand trees were planted. Bronte Payne, the Leigh Landcare Group President, had this to say in Victorian Landcare—I think it says it all:Our group has had a real boost. It will go a long way towards helping us in our efforts to protect our local waterways and to enhance our local environment.Paul Whinney, DNRE's Geelong based salinity officer, reinforced Bronte's comments and highlighted the strategic nature of the task, saying:The project complements other group efforts, especially nearby salinity control demonstrations where increased sowings of perennial pastures are reducing runoff and groundwater intrusion while increasing the productivity of the district.There we have a group working together, improving farmer productivity and looking after the environment. Whinney went on to say:Protecting creek lines with native tree cover not only provides wildlife with corridors, but has immense benefits for grazing livestock providing valuable farm shelter on the harsh western district plains.DNRE landcare officer Graeme Anderson saw the NHT and salinity funding as a wise investment in the region's natural environment. He said:. . . one blue-green algal outbreak in Lake Murdeduke could cost the community hundreds of thousands of dollars. The funding received by the group provides critical financial incentives for the landholders to take on such a large landcare project to counter this risk.Money is pretty tight at the moment, but the way in which the farming community has banded together to support the project is a credit to their vision and commitment to the environment.There we have it. That is from an independent source, supporting the government's program. I went to have a look at this particular project a couple of weeks ago and I observed the outstanding results, particularly on Mr Peter Kininmonth's property, a leader in conservation and landcare. He has planted trees along Tunnel Creek. He has ripped, moulded and sprayed that area to ensure the trees get a good start. It is a wonderful project and a great demonstration of what can be done, both by the farmers and by the locals themselves.In the short time available, could I just report on the Thompsons Creek Catchment Committee. I launched the Thompsons Creek catchment plan on their behalf 10 days ago—a clear demonstration of a commitment by local people, by a local committee, by state, local government and local landcare groups to bring about a 10-year program. If you look at the people involved, it gives the lie to the fact that these Natural Heritage Trust grants were dominated by political imperatives. The chairperson, Sandi Allen, from the Landcare Group, the secretary, Jeanette Spittle, of the Surf Coast Shire and the planning officer, Peter Moulton, all did a great job preparing this. We had representatives from Thompsons Creek Landcare and from Breamlea Coast Action; Tim Baylis, a land catchment owner; Graeme Anderson and Paul Whinney from DNRE; and Michael Sayers, a rural-urban coordinator. Quite clearly we have a situation where the community are involved. Farmers and land-holders who are interested in the environment are involved in bringing about a total plan which is compatible with the government's whole policy approach in the Natural Heritage Trust position. (Time expired)77317:03:00773Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—There will be no prizes for guessing correctly that we on this side of the House are very passionate about the subject of child care—an issue that was raised in a motion before the House today by the member for Barton (Mr McClelland), and similarly in a question from this side of the House to the government during question time today. It is a big issue in many of the areas that we represent. We know that the government's child-care policy is, to date, perceived as nothing more or less than a national disgrace. I grew up in a constituency, a large part of which entails the city of Casey, a municipality which has the largest number of naught to four-year-olds of any municipality in the country. So I am speaking of something I know about; I have first-hand experience.I am speaking on behalf of working families when I say that the government's child-care cuts are really hurting them. This government has shown again that it has no regard for the provision of quality child care. Its cuts and changes to child care over the preceding two budgets have led to what can only be described as an unaffordable, inflexible shambles of a policy which meets neither the needs of parents nor those of the children concerned. Quality is suffering and, as we will see, parents are increasingly unable to afford quality care.The member for Barton today referred to and reminded members of a picture that not many of us could forget of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—then the Prime Minister-to-be—during the last election campaign, squatting in a sandpit in a tea party situation at a child-care centre. That child-care centre was less than a kilometre from my office in Cranbourne, perhaps the child-care capital of Victoria. An article in the Cranbourne Sun of 17 February this year, in an article headed `Fees forced up, kids forced out', basically sums up the whole of the government's policy on child care. The article states:In Casey more than 40 families have dropped out of council-run child care centres since last July.Normally the centres are full and have a waiting list—but now the centres are running as low as 83 per cent capacity.The Casey Council states that the withdrawal of state and federal government subsidies has forced them to put up fees and that is clearly impacting on families who can no longer afford child care. Given the fact Casey has the highest population of zero to four-year-olds in the whole of Australia, it is arguable that the cuts are hitting hardest here.But they are not only hitting hard in that part of Isaacs. As I have put to the House before, the Ashmore Avenue Child Care Centre, in beautiful bayside Mordialloc, was forced to close late last year, primarily due to the cuts that it could not sustain because of the government's operational child-care subsidy. Let us look a little more closely at and examine the impact of the Howard government cuts, which amount to some $820 million over the preceding two budgets, forcing prices to rise by some $25 per child per week as a result. This, in turn, is forcing families out of child-care centres.These cuts have the potential not only to hurt the parents but, above all, to hurt the children. It is hurting the children because the quality of child care is being reduced. Rising costs are forcing their mums and dads to unlicensed, often described as `backyard', operators with all their dangers—and, of course, quality of care suffers. The National Association of Community Based Children's Services survey in September last year found that some 73 per cent of families leaving existing child care cited increased fees as the reason and that centres report parents stopping work or choosing unlicensed care.I refer to an article in the Australian on 1 March this year. The article was headed `Fee increases to force parents to pull out of childcare system'. It went on to say that the $2.4 billion child-care industry is talking about child care being in crisis and the finger of blame is being pointed squarely at the Howard government, at those opposite. Another article in the Canberra Times on 26 February this year was headed `Childcare cuts hit home'. This article says:Primary school children were going home alone after school because their parents could no longer afford child care fees.These are the latchkey kids that we discussed today in Labor's earlier motion on child care. Parents, often women, are reducing their hours of work or quitting work because they cannot afford to pay for child care. They are being forced to stay home and mind their family. This, in turn, forces centres to close and prices to rise. No doubt family income and family security suffer as a result. All these cuts have nothing less than a disproportionate effect on women, who will reduce their hours or more than likely stop working because they can no longer afford to keep their kids in child care because of the ever increasing costs.If women are no longer able to work it will also have a serious effect on families who rely on two incomes to meet all the payments that families must meet, notably mortgage payments. If one parent stops working, without a doubt the income of that family suffers a serious decline. What the Prime Minister fails to understand is that, despite all his exhortations, many families do require two incomes to make ends meet. Parents who quit work are forced to rely more heavily on the social security safety net.Parents work in what can only be described as an increasingly unstable work force. Families rely on two parents working for reasons of security if for nothing else. Do not just take my word for this. Let us look at a survey conducted by the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union in conjunction with the National Association of Community Based Children's Services. The survey found that a large number of centres are reporting instances of parents, particularly women, being forced to change their work patterns or even leave the work force as the cost of child care increases. The survey states that some 53 per cent of said parents have given up work because of the cost of formal care and 44 per cent said that they expected this would happen in 1998.The survey went on to say that 68 per cent of parents had changed their work hours to reduce the days or hours they were forced to place their children in paid care. The more children leaving the greater the costs of centres—up go the fees once again. As parents are taking their kids out of child care because of the costs, the government is saying that the demand for child care is not there. The demand is not there because parents are being forced to remove their kids out of child care given the spiralling fee hikes. The government has certainly used its power, no doubt, to engender this lack of demand.The Howard government, in its reform to place a 50-hour a week cap on child-care assistance, does not recognise or acknowledge the way child-care centres work, notably 11 or 12-hour days. For many families this will restrict child care to four days a week because they cannot afford five days a week or they will find cheaper, unregistered, unaccredited backyard care or the parent will have to work part time.There is an even bigger problem for parents: centres are reducing their hours in response. If you live on the outer fringe, as do the many parents in Cranbourne, you cannot afford to have a shift work based job if you have to pick your kids up from a child-care centre which closes at 5 o'clock. You may need to pick up your child at 6 p.m. or perhaps 7 p.m. This has become a way of life for many battling outer suburban families and the changing hours are a serious problem for them as are spiralling costs.The government's record is abysmal. It has torn the industry apart. Its changes have hurt working families. In the article I referred to earlier from the Cranbourne Sun the Director of the Clarendon Street child-care centre, Sonia Dawson, states it best. She said that the child-care system has changed completely in the last year. `It all revolves around money,' she said. (Time expired)77517:13:00775Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I want to make a strong grievance in the parliament this afternoon and I believe it is one that you, Mr Deputy Speaker Dondas, as a member representing northern Australia, will heartily endorse. This is a grievance on behalf of all of those in North Queensland because I want a fair go for North Queensland. It is about time that our community got a fair go in relation to the supply of doctors to our local communities.On the front of the daily Townsville Bulletin today the lead story was `Doctor crisis shuts doors'. It is just unforgivable that this should be happening in our community at this time. This particular health centre was forced to reduce its hours because it could not get doctors to man the centre. That is a disgraceful situation. Why is this happening? Why is it that it is very difficult for locums to be obtained in North Queensland? This is a situation that must be addressed and must be positively addressed as soon as possible. There certainly is a solution. The solution is in this article, and I quote from it. It says:If we had a medical school in North Queensland, then we could have doctors finishing their training with us and staying in northern Australia.The fact that we are having problems obtaining the services of locums to make sure that our medical services go on is only just one of the issues that we are facing in North Queensland at the moment. As you go further west from Townsville, you find that the problem gets worse. Trying to get a full-time doctor—not just a locum but a full-time doctor—in places like Richmond, Julia Creek or Cloncurry is very difficult indeed. That is a problem that the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) and I have recognised and we know that something has to be done about it.We also need a medical school that will specialise in matters like tropical medicine. We do not have one in this country at the moment. We need a medical school that will specialise in matters of rural health and a medical school that will specialise in matters of indigenous health. Certainly there is great demand for that. There is a solution to it. The solution to it is that the James Cook University of North Queensland is prepared to establish and operate North Queensland's first medical school.There was some excitement in the Townsville community back in 1983 when the then Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke promised a medical school for James Cook University. In a 1986 letter, the long-time identity George Roberts, who was then chancellor of the university, cited the most bitter blow as the Hawke government's failure to deliver on its 1983 promise of a medical school and that, needless to say, when those recommendations were received, they were not acceptable to the gremlins. What a shame that here was an opportunity to establish a medical school and it was not taken on.The Queensland state government very strongly backs a medical school for James Cook University. The Queensland Minister for Health, Mike Horan, has been outstanding in his support of the university and the North Queensland community in trying to secure a medical school for James Cook. I want to recognise that support today and I want to compliment the state government on being so strongly supportive of Townsville and James Cook University. It affects not only Townsville but also the seat of Leichhardt in Cairns and the seat of Dawson in Mackay where, if there was a medical school established, there would be elements of that medical school located in Cairns, in Mackay and in Townsville.What is the case that Townsville has for a medical school? I have some pretty hard-hitting facts here which I certainly want to put on the public record. We all know that Queensland has the second largest land mass of Australia—that is, 22.5 per cent—and the third largest but fastest growing population of any state or territory in Australia. North Queensland has a population of about 600,000 people, and that is a population larger than Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory combined.North Queensland makes up about 45 per cent of the state's total area and 17 per cent of the population but is home to only about nine per cent of the state's registered medical practitioners. How could that be? Of Queensland's 1,091 specialist medical practitioners, 837 live and practise in Brisbane and in surrounding communities. Townsville is more than 1,400 kilometres from the nearest medical school, which is located in Brisbane. That is unfair and that is not a fair go for North Queensland. Tasmania has a full medical school and yet it is also geographically close to Melbourne's two medical schools. What do we have? A medical school in Brisbane 1,400 kilometres away. South Australia, a state significantly smaller in both area and population than Queensland, has two full medical schools. How could that be? In Queensland there is only one medical school for every 3,277,000 people. In Tasmania it is one school per 473,000 and in South Australia it is one school per 737,000.You look at these figures and think: where is the rationale in that planning? A survey published in March 1997 by the Queensland Council for Rural Medicine found that 70 per cent of rural general practitioners work in excess of 41 hours a week and, of those, 15 per cent work in excess of 60 hours a week. Finding a locum to come to relieve in these rural and regional centres is extremely difficult. In fact, it is extremely difficult to find a locum to work in Townsville, the capital city of northern Australia. In some parts of North Queensland, as the member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch), the member for Kennedy and the member for Dawson (Mrs De-Anne Kelly) will also tell you, finding a locum is just next to impossible.Indeed, other surveys such as a paper written by Camien and Buttfield published in the Medical Journal of Australia in 1990 has found that finding relief locums is a major source of stress for 64 per cent of country doctors and for nearly all doctors in remote areas. We have doctors literally working themselves into the ground. Why do we have that? Because of the intransigence of these so-called sandstone universities. They do not want to give up places to allow those places to be transferred to North Queensland. But there is a solution, and I think that this might be a solution that would be acceptable to all concerned. That solution is that we should have a full, autonomous JCU medical school by the year 2003 and that joint management of a northern medical education program between JCU and the University of Queensland should commence immediately with phased transition encompassing a clear timetable, and that clear timetable has to be signed in blood.The next point is that the first intake of JCU undergraduate medical students should be in the year 2000. Forty medical school places now in North Queensland—and they are already there—should be transferred to the JCU program reflecting a fair distribution of medical school places across the state. I note that the University of Queensland unilaterally increased its medical school intake from 200 to 240 per year when they changed to a graduate program at a time when the University of Sydney, for example, was reducing theirs. I think that all medical schools across Australia are aware of the unilateral action of the University of Queensland in increasing doctor training numbers and then not wanting to give up those places to a school that I think should fairly be provided with those places.To establish a viable medical school, JCU needs those 40 places from the University of Queensland, and probably 20 to 30 additional places from outside Queensland. That would reflect a fairer distribution across Australia. The other thing that concerns me about the University of Queensland is that 70 per cent of its medical students do not even come from Queensland. They come from south of the border. Where do they go when they finish their degree? They go back south of the border, and it leaves North Queensland with the very problem I articulated earlier in this speech.I certainly demand resolution of this problem this year. The time for talking has ended. The time for action is clearly with us. James Cook University has a strong case and a very worthwhile case for a medical school, and I am going to work to make sure that that goes in place.77717:23:00777Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Earlier in the grievance debate, the honourable member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) raised the question of the Multilateral Agreement on Investment. I do not wish to debate fully the matter that she put to us. Suffice it to say that I understand that out in the community there are people who are from the political Right and the political Left who have some questions about that agreement, the MAI, and I understand that those questions need to be discussed and looked at.I believe that the proposal of the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton), as the shadow foreign affairs spokesperson, that this agreement should go to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties as soon as possible, is quite appropriate. In fact, it is a course of action that, in discussion with people in my electorate, I have suggested the parliament should see forthwith.I was a little dismayed at the dismissive comments made by the honourable member for Oxley about whether the referral to the Joint Committee on Treaties was worth while or not. The honourable member for Oxley should realise that one of the ways in which the parliament is able to report to the people is through the work of the committees. Whilst it was an initiative of this government—and I have to admit that I think it is a worthwhile initiative—I believe that the Joint Committee on Treaties is an appropriate body to hold a public inquiry into this agreement, and I stress that it is a public inquiry.This committee on other treaties has gone around the nation and sought comment and submissions from the public. I believe that it is an appropriate venue for a public discussion of the matters that are covered by the Multilateral Agreement on Investment and that the referral is something that is very positive. I urge the government to refer this agreement as early as possible to the committee.But today I wish to talk about my grievance—the way in which the community is being cut from inclusion in what this government is doing. I wish to raise a number of examples about the way in which the government has embarked upon policies that have not been inclusive of the community. One of those areas is the debacle that we see in residential aged care.I have a particular project in my electorate which is sponsored by the Villa Maria Society. Last year, they completed a 51-bed hostel to a standard that would take both low and high level care patients in a belief that the changes that this government was making to aged care would enable them to do so on completion. Whilst they got the funding in the first place under the old nomenclature for hostel accommodation, I stress that they built those beds to the proper standards which would enable them to provide residents in their aged care facility both high and low care. The project was the subject of a question in this place back on 19 November 1997 after Archbishop Pell, on blessing the facility, had described his disquiet about the way in which aged care policy was developing. I think he might have used language to say that the aged care policy of this government was a shemozzle.So here is a 51-bed facility that has been ready to go since 19 November but which remains absolutely empty. Forget about entering into a partisan discussion about how bad the present policies of the government are. I would have thought that a government that came into this place talking about the need for quality places in residential aged care would not sit back idle, would not sit on its hands, whilst a facility which could provide 51 beds in the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne remains empty.What are the reasons for its remaining empty? It is simply because the government has been pig-headed. Early on in this saga, it would not sit down with the Villa Maria Society and talk through the ways in which that society could open the facilities. Back in November when the facility was blessed by the archbishop, there were some 20-odd people on the waiting list to go into the facility. The problem was that the majority of those required the higher level care. In fact, of the 21 or 22 people—I cannot remember how many it was at that time—only two required low level care. So the facility could actually provide only two people with the care. Now those on its waiting list for low level care have increased to 11, but in fact there are 54 high care patients that that facility could immediately pick from to take as residents.So not only do I have a concern about the way in which the policy has been put in place; I question the fair dinkumness of this government wishing to provide these places. The government could have acted in a much more prompt manner and had this facility open and had clients that were requiring this type of aged care in residence. It is a disgrace that this has gone on for so long. For three months, a facility has been completed and ready to go but has remained idle.It is not only in the area of aged care that I have some concern about what this government is doing to cut out the community. I am concerned about other areas. For instance, in the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne in quite a large area which covers nearly four federal electorates, the North East Migrant Resource Centre operates. This centre does cater for four seats that happen to be held by Labor, but that is a geographical fact. It is also a fact of the demographics of those electorates that they have high migrant populations. They are also high in the target group that this government has—that is, new arrivals, especially new arrivals who come here under the refugee and humanitarian program—for services such as migrant resource centres, and grants-in-aid.This is an area which is quite large. The migrant resource centre for the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, which has a very good reputation, put forward a proposal to receive federal government funding to open a suboffice in the northern end of the region that it caters, in the city of Whittlesea. As yet, it has not had a concrete answer about that. The reason it has not had a concrete answer to that proposal is that the funding of migrant resource centres is under review. The centre was lucky to be advised that it has funding up until the end of the financial year, as for all migrant resource centres. We are ticking through the year and into March, with only three months to go until then, and there is still doubt about its ongoing funding.What the government is ignoring here is that the city of Whittlesea has quite generously made space available for this suboffice in Epping. We have an opportunity where the city of Whittlesea, acting on behalf of its community, is willing to enter into a partnership with the federal government to provide services that are essential. I just hope it is not the contention of the minister that, in this case, the north-east migrant resource centre is in some way simply there because it caters for Labor electorates. That is an absolute nonsense. This is a centre that has an inevitable reputation for providing services. If the Job Network and the new labour market programs put in place by this government were fair dinkum, the centre would have gained funding under that. It would be, in the words of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock), an infrastructure magnet, able to get valuable funding from other sources. But the migrant resource centre, like a number of community organisations in the north-eastern suburbs of Melbourne, missed out merely because this government wants to privatise labour market programs. (Time expired)77917:33:00779Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—I draw the government's attention to the plight of hundreds of non-custodial parents in my electorate of Capricornia and the tens of thousands of non-custodial parents across the country. A joint select committee under the former government held an extensive inquiry and came up with 163 recommendations on certain family law issues. The previous government passed 53 of the recommendations into law, while this government has acted to address 59 of the recommendations. That of course adds to it as well.Unfortunately, most of these recommendations will not come into force for some time and will not apply until the 1998-99 financial year. Although I appreciate that legislation does take time to become law, there are many people in our communities who are at the end of their tether with the current system. They not only want, but must have, change implemented today—not in six months or 12 months time.Since entering federal parliament, I have received a considerable number of letters enclosing supporting documents which demonstrate how unfair the child support system really is. I will read some of these to the House to emphasise the problems these people are faced with. The first is Mr T.D. of Blackwater. This man's wife left him when he was away on business for four days. She took the two children with her, as well as $17,600 in savings from the bank and the car. He tried to find her and, when she heard of this, she took out a domestic violence order against him. The wife went to the Child Support Agency and claimed child support nine months after the event. He was required to pay $362 a week towards the two children. The Child Support Agency has seen fit to backdate the support to the day she and her children left, and it has given him a bill for $10,000 in arrears.Although this gentleman has a good paying job in the mining industry, he has no money to pay the arrears because the wife has taken it out of the bank. Therefore, he now finds himself in a position where the Child Support Agency is taking an additional $200 a week out of his pay on top of the $362 a week, totalling $562 a week. Mr T.D. earns about $1,400 a week, pays $600 to $700 a week in tax and superannuation, which leaves about $700. He is forced to pay $562 to his wife, which leaves him with less than $140 a week to live on. This is completely unfair. He is also expected to attend counselling and mediation as a result of the break-up, and this is driving him into further debt. Many would ask why the man continues to work. Many have pulled the pin from the mining industry and have gone onto the dole and, frankly, you can understand why. The plight of these people is absolutely devastating and it is all happening over the issue of child support.Another example is that of Mr J.T. of Moranbah. This man earns approximately $70,000 per annum and has been paying an agreed amount of child support to the custodial parent. Last year, Mr J.T. made a loss of $36,000 from his primary production business, which resulted in a taxable income of $34,000. The custodial parent requested a review of the child support assessment on the grounds that more money was needed for educational costs. Although there was no substance to the claim, as the child attends a state school and the costs incurred are only `normal costs', the review officer deemed it appropriate to add back the tax loss and force the non-custodial parent to pay child support on his pre-taxable income of $70,000.The non-custodial parent has experienced job cutbacks in the mining industry with no overtime allowed to supplement a basic wage, so he is not going to earn anything near what he normally does. Yet he is expected to pay not only the tax loss but also a child support figure based on past earnings. The review officer has not given the non-custodial parent any time to dispose of his loss-making venture to meet the debt. The non-custodial parent has to meet all obligations himself. In other words, the family, in this instance the custodial parent and the child, does not share in the burden of the non-custodial parent. Additionally, the custodial parent's current partner earns more than the non-custodial parent and owns real estate and a business which is capable of a big income, while the non-custodial parent has only a primary production business venture that is taking time to get off the ground.Mr A.S. of Blackwater is another similar case. This person was originally assessed to pay $38 per week child support for his daughter. After a change in employment and a review, this was raised to $150 per week and he was hit with a $3,000 arrears bill, which is now added to his weekly payment, totalling $200 per week. The non-custodial parent applied to the Child Support Agency for hardship consideration because the mine he was working at went on strike for 15 weeks and he received no money whatsoever. His debts are mounting up and he is financially crippled. The Child Support Agency has advised him he will have to wait up to 10 to 12 weeks for his review. This person has outgoing costs of $1,500 a month, but he has nothing to live on. Yet the Child Support Agency still wants its litre of blood.These are just some of the examples of what non-custodial parents are experiencing out there. It is a one-way system that is quick to impose further costs on the non-custodial parent but very slow to act on behalf of the non-custodial parent. This is causing serious concerns for these people, and it does not surprise me that we continue to see more suicides and family tragedies. We must act now to address this very serious community problem. We cannot just sit on our hands and wait for the few implemented changes to take a hold in the system. We must be prepared to bite the bullet and bring about a more equitable system that is fair and just to all parties.The child support arena has caused a lot of pain. I know that adjusting the legislation to help some of these people is an issue that might be coming up soon, but what we are going to implement in the coming week does not go far enough. We really need to change the system so that these people get a fair deal.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon N.M. Dondas)—The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees78078078010000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon N.M. Dondas)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Neal has been discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that Senator Reynolds has been appointed a member of the committee.Private Members' Business78078010000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Earlier today the member for Watson (Mr Leo McLeay), in addressing the House during consideration of private members' business, moved a motion that the question then before the chair be now put. As is the practice with divisions called for on motions moved by members other than ministers during private members' business on Mondays, the division was deferred under standing order 193.I have since had the opportunity to reflect on the events in the chamber at that time. Consideration of the matter under discussion had pursuant to paragraph (c) and (d) of standing order 28D been determined by the Selection Committee to continue on a future day. This is indicated on today's Notice Paper on pages 7853 and 7854. The motion that the question be now put could only have been resolved in the negative, given this determination by the Selection Committee.It would have been necessary for standing and sessional orders to be suspended for the matter to be put to a vote at this sitting. On the last occasion that such a consideration was before the House, on 16 September 1996, the honourable member for Watson was also involved. On that occasion, he correctly moved the suspension of standing and sessional orders. The closure motion was therefore out of order and should not have been accepted by the chair. Any subsequent division would, by definition, also have been out of order and there is no longer an appropriate basis for the deferred division to be held. Debate on the matter is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed.Bills781r28781Bill presented by Mr Williams, and read a first time.78117:45:00781Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Introduction When I introduced the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 into the House of Representatives on 4 September 1997, I outlined the circumstances which made amendment of the Native Title Act 1993 essential and how each of the major provisions in the bill would address the inadequacies of that act, particularly following the Wik decision in December 1996. Very briefly, in common with that bill, this bill is designed to achieve the following outcomes:. to provide an application and determination system which is constitutionally secure and which will enable the states and territories to develop their own systems for dealing with native title matters provided they comply with national standards;. to ensure that action taken by governments and others between the commencement of the act in 1994 and the Wik decision in December 1996 should not be invalid because of a legitimate and reasonable assumption that the grant of a pastoral lease extinguished native title, an assumption subsequently found to be wrong;. to bring a greater level of certainty to all Australians by providing, where it can reasonably be said that native title has been extinguished by types of government grants, that this extinguishment is confirmed, rather than leave individual grants to be litigated on a case by case basis;. to make it clear in the act itself what acts can be done on land and waters that may be subject to native title, including the provision of services to the public, the renewal of leases and licences, the regulation and management of water and the implementation of past reservations of land, and to apply the non-extinguishment principle in relation to those acts;. in the case of pastoral lease land, to specify the kinds of activities that can be carried on by pastoralists, and to reflect the Wik decision by expressly providing that those activities prevail over native title rights and interests, but do not extinguish them;. to protect any existing access of native title claimants to pastoral lease land while claims are being determined;. to limit application of the special statutory right to negotiate process to those areas where it was intended to apply—vacant crown land where there are no competing third party interests; to reduce unnecessary delay in that process; and to put in place a registration test for claims which ensures that those negotiating with developers have a credible claim;. to provide a legally certain, procedurally straightforward and comprehensive agreements framework; and, finally. to help bring about an effective native title system by ensuring that native title representative bodies are efficient, effective and accountable. The 1997 bill resulted from 18 months of consultations and discussions with all sectors of Australian society potentially affected by native title and represented an honest compromise based on the outcome of those discussions. The bill's broad policy approach and the processes which led to its development are more fully outlined in my second reading speech to the House on 4 September 1997.The government has at all stages indicated it is prepared to consider changes which would improve workability and reduce uncertainty, provided they did not tip the balance of interests so carefully reflected in the 10-point plan, and then in the bill. Indeed, a substantial number of government amendments were moved to the bill during the Senate debate in December 1997 for that purpose.The government's judgment about the fairness of the 1997 bill has been largely vindicated by the acceptance by the Senate of substantial parts of the bill including those dealing with indigenous land use agreements, representative bodies, the confirmation of past extinguishment, the validation of acts before Wik, and the future act provisions, with either no changes, or only minor changes.It is noteworthy that notwithstanding the early harsh criticism from the opposition of a wide range of these provisions, the Leader of the Opposition has now indicated support for that Senate outcome. However, the Senate made a number of changes in areas we regard as vital to the act's workability. The government cannot accept these amendments for reasons described in more detail below.The Prime Minister indicated when the 1997 bill was laid aside by the House of Representatives that the Senate would, after three months, be asked to consider that bill again. The Prime Minister also indicated that, if it became apparent that the only way in which the bill could be passed was to use the constitution's processes for resolving disagreements between the houses, the government would be prepared to take that course. The Prime Minister also indicated his hope that this option would prove to be unnecessary.A history of the billApart from incorporating a number of amendments made by the Senate in December 1997, this bill is the same as the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 passed by the House of Representatives on 29 October 1997. The 1997 bill itself contained the substance of the Native Title Amendment Bill 1996, which I had introduced into the House on 27 June 1996. It also contained proposed government amendments to the bill released in October 1996, dealing with the right to negotiate, indigenous land use agreements and representative bodies.The main additions in the 1997 bill were of course the amendments developed by the government, following negotiations with interest groups, about the best way to respond to the uncertainties created by the Wik decision of December 1996.Immediately the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 was introduced into the House on 4 September 1997, its contents were referred to the parliamentary Joint Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund for report by 27 October 1997. The committee undertook an extensive inquiry, holding public hearings over twelve days, visiting Broome, Alice Springs and Cairns. The fact it received over 1,700 written submissions is indicative of the immense public interest in the bill.The committee's reports were tabled in the House on 27 October 1997 and in the Senate on 28 October 1997 with the majority report recommending that the bill be adopted, and that the government consider making amendments in four areas. The relevant amendments were moved by the government in the Senate and accepted. The bill was passed by the House on 29 October 1997, the House having agreed to the inclusion of a new schedule of exclusive possession tenures.The Senate had already agreed on 2 October 1997 that the provisions of the bill should be referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee for inquiry and report on the constitutionality and constitutional bases of the bill. After receiving submissions from 29 bodies and individuals and hearing evidence from 11 of these, the committee reported on 10 November 1997 with the majority concluding that, on balance, the High Court would find the bill constitutionally valid. The committee recommended, however, that the relevant provisions of the bill be reviewed to confirm that the legislation met the constitutional requirement for the acquisition of property on just terms.What happened in the Senate The bill was introduced into the Senate on 11 November 1997 with non-government parties and Senator Harradine indicating they would be moving a total of over 750 amendments; in the case of the opposition, the Greens and Democrats these involved a substantial rewrite of the bill. In response to the recommendations of the parliamentary joint committee and the Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, the government released its own amendments to the bill designed to address some of the legal and policy issues raised in their respective reports.Additional amendments were also introduced by the government arising out of discussions with the opposition and Senator Harradine during the Senate debate. It is important that specific mention is made of the more significant of these government amendments because, in the heat of the debate last year, they did not receive the recognition they deserved as effective measures for dealing with the issues raised in evidence to the committees.For instance, the bill's validation provisions were amended to require notification of mining leases granted in the period from 1 January 1994 to the date of the Wik decision—schedule 1, section 22EA in this bill. The confirmation of extinguishment provisions were amended to put beyond doubt that Aboriginal land, national parks and conservation areas and stock routes were not included—schedule 1, section 23B in this bill. In part to address the issue of just terms compensation, a requirement for notification of native title holders of the doing of specific future acts—such as agricultural and forestry activity—and a general regulation-making power for notification of such acts, were both included. The operation of the sunset clause on compensation claims was made subject to notification of native title holders affected by the compensable act—schedule 2, section 50(2A) in this bill. Provisions were also included to ensure that any compulsory acquisition of native title rights and interests must be done in a non-discriminatory manner, and that the requirement to pay just terms compensation for acquisitions would apply to the states and territories as well as the Commonwealth.The capacity of governments to grant pastoralists new primary production rights was clarified, in particular by ensuring that if more than 50 per cent of a pastoral lease of over 5,000 hectares was to be used for non-pastoral purposes any native title must be acquired by agreement or in a non-discriminatory manner—schedule 1, subsection 24GB(4) in this bill.In response to concerns about the registration test, and to encourage negotiated rather than arbitrated outcomes in the right to negotiate process, the Registrar was given an extra month to consider claims for registration, and the parties were given six months to negotiate an outcome.As a result of discussions with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, a number of changes were also made to the comprehensive representative body provisions to clarify their operation and ensure proper accountability.Perhaps most significantly, so far as indigenous criticism was concerned, the government met the argument that the bill failed to take account of the issue of `historic' pastoral leases. Proposed sections 47A and 47B in schedule 1 will enable indigenous people who are in occupation of an area where there are no longer any competing third party rights to claim native title and have the court disregard the tenure history of the area in determining that claim.It is worth noting that the Senate supported the vast majority of these government amendments. Any fair-minded observer will concede that these changes go a substantial way to meeting concerns raised about some provisions of the bill. It is also worth noting that, notwithstanding the sometimes heated and ill-informed public and media debate and the lengthy consideration by the committee of the whole—the total time for consideration by the Senate was over 56 hours—the Senate debate was generally characterised by its calmness, good spirit and professionalism.The opposition combined with the government and Senator Harradine on 5 December 1997 to vote for the third reading of the bill, with 217 Senate amendments. This outcome represented a significant narrowing of the areas of disagreement. The opposition indicated its support for the bill's provisions which it had, until that time, denounced as racist and totally unacceptable. These provisions included:. the comprehensive validation regime for acts between the commencement of the Native Title Act in 1994 and the Wik decision;. subject to a number of additional relatively minor changes, the confirmation provisions, including the schedule of exclusive possession tenures;. the primary production provisions which put beyond legal doubt what activities pastoralists are able to carry on; and. the statutory access rights for registered native title claimants.The general support by the Senate of many other initiatives included in the bill, such as the powers and functions of representative bodies, the regime for recognising indigenous land use agreements, and the new claims and determination process necessitated by the High Court's Brandy decision, was a welcome sign of the recognition of the substantial deficiencies of the current Native Title Act. However, the Senate also made a number of amendments proposed by non-government parties and independent senators which would severely undermine the workability of the act, and this is why the 1997 bill could not be finally dealt with.The response of the House of RepresentativesOn 6 December 1997 the House of Representatives indicated its acceptance of 125 of the 217 amendments in the schedule and its rejection of 92. The House then agreed to lay the bill aside. There were four particular sets of amendments made by the Senate which were, and remain, unacceptable to the government—they relate to the registration test, the right to negotiate, the relationship between the Native Title Act and the Racial Discrimination Act and the sunset clause on applications for determinations of native title under the Native Title Act.Also significant were those amendments relating to small claims, indigenous land use agreements, pastoralists' rights, the renewal of leases, the treatment of Crown to Crown grants, and the way in which state and territory tribunals should operate. The government made clear during consideration by the House of Representatives on 6 December 1997 of the Senate schedule of amendments its reasons for rejecting the registration test, right to negotiate, Racial Discrimination Act and sunset clause amendments. It is appropriate and timely for those reasons to be reiterated.(i) Registration testEveryone agrees, including indigenous representatives, that an effective registration test as the gateway to the statutory benefits which the act provides is essential. While the Brandy amendments in the bill have overcome the watering-down of the current threshold test by the Waanyi and Northern Territory v. Lane decisions, it is essential to the continuing acceptance of the right to negotiate process that only those people with a credible native title claim should participate.Application of an improved test will go a long way to removing the ambit and unprepared claims which are now clogging the National Native Title Tribunal, causing uncertainty for state and local governments, involving thousands and thousands of respondents and dollars, delaying many resource developments and undermining the credibility of native title processes. The registration test adopted by the Senate, while an improvement on both the current situation and the wholly ineffective test originally proposed by the opposition, the Greens and Democrats in the Senate in December, would not provide the degree of scrutiny which those who will have to deal with registered claimants have a right to expect.For instance, it would not expressly prevent registration of a claim over land which has been subject to a freehold grant or a residential lease. It would also allow claimants to be a party to negotiations on whether a mine should go ahead even though no member of the claim group can demonstrate that they have ever visited the area. A test which sets the bar too low and does not require the registrar to be prima facie satisfied in relation to all aspects of the native title rights and interests claimed will not effectively address the problem of claimants with limited prospects of success having access to the right to negotiate process.It should be remembered that once a court has determined that native title exists, the native title holders will, as a matter of course, have access to the right to negotiate. The registration test is only relevant to those claimants who have yet to establish their claim in court. The government has therefore maintained the registration test previously passed by this House—schedule 2, sections 190A, 190B and 190C in the bill.(ii) Right to negotiateWhen introducing the bill in September 1997, I made the point that the right to negotiate procedures have failed to deliver the outcomes that were expected. The situation has not changed in the intervening six months.At 16 January 1998, of the 2,186 mineral tenements in Western Australia which have become subject to the full right to negotiate, only 196 have been cleared for grant following lodgement of an agreement under section 34 of the act. The bill's amendments to the right to negotiate procedures, which were effectively rejected by the Senate, were designed to achieve two outcomes:. to exclude the right to negotiate where it is inappropriate because of the nature of the rights to be granted, the minimal impact on the land or the limited native title rights that can potentially exist; and. to streamline the process to reduce unnecessary delay and, where appropriate, to de volve greater responsibility to the states and territories to deal with these matters.The effect of the Senate amendments to the right to negotiate provisions would be to maintain the full right to negotiate on pastoral lease land, on non-government infrastructure development, on exploration activities and on the renewal of mining leases—even though the grant of the lease may already have been subject to the right to negotiate process—and in towns and cities.The right to negotiate is a significant brake on mining and public and private development activity. It is a right that no others with interests in land have. Because of this, the government believes that the right to negotiate should only operate where native title holders have significant interests in the land, interests analogous to ownership of that land. Where native title holders do not have such a high level of rights, and in particular where they can only have co-existing rights with others, then the full right to negotiate is inappropriate.This bill still contains section 43A in schedule 1 which enables a state or territory to apply its own regime in relation to mining and relevant compulsory acquisitions where native title holders have limited co-existing rights. Of course those alternative regimes must meet specific criteria, including the provision of procedural rights to native title holders equivalent to the procedural rights of others.(iii) Racial Discrimination ActThe Senate agreed to an amendment which would replace the current subsection 7(1) of the Native Title Act—which states that nothing in the act affects the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975—with a provision which instead states that the Native Title Act is intended to be read and construed subject to the Racial Discrimination Act. Perhaps the most eloquent exposition of the arguments against this proposal was stated by Senator Harradine in the Senate on 5 December 1997:It is unworkable because every provision in the legislation will have to be subject to the RDA. There will be endless litigation about it. Why did we not put it in the 1993 legislation? For the very reason that we ought not be putting it in here. The Labor government at that time knew that it was a nonsense to put a similar provision in the Native Title Act. If the Labor Party faced up to the real world now, they would realise that it would be, and is, not an appropriate thing to do if you want to have the legislation work for the benefit of indigenous people—native title holders—and in fairness to the rights of other persons. Under those circumstances, I do not intend to support the motion.It is unclear what the amendment agreed to by the Senate actually means. On one view, it could mean that, notwithstanding a government had fully complied with all the requirements of the Native Title Act in relation to the granting or renewal of a particular lease or licence, and the act stated that the grant was valid, the grant may still be challenged in the courts as inconsistent with the Racial Discrimination Act and on that basis be held invalid.On another view, it does no more than reflect what the High Court indicated in Western Australia v The Commonwealth, that is, that the Racial Discrimination Act is relevant in resolving ambiguities in the Native Title Act and in guiding the exercise of statutory discretions under that act.The inherent ambiguity in the proposed amendment is the kind of political doublespeak which underpinned the deal done by the previous government in relation to pastoral leases in 1993—a mistake which this government has no intention of emulating. For this reason, the amendment should be rejected.It cannot be in anyone's interests to have such a high level of uncertainty surrounding the relationship between the act and the Racial Discrimination Act. It is the obligation of this parliament to make clear, precise laws. Even the Labor dominated Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee concluded in 1993, in considering the 1993 Native Title Bill, that a similar formulation would be a recipe for uncertainty and recommended that it not be adopted.It is reassuring to see that someone who could never be accused of supporting the government on native title matters recognises the uncertainty which the amendment would produce if the generally agreed aim of all parties for certainty and workability is to have any meaning. Father Frank Brennan said earlier this year that `Despite the populist appeal of this amendment, the Opposition parties should back down in the interests of certainty, justice and workability for all stakeholders'. This bill therefore maintains the existing provision in subsection 7(1) of the act.(iv) Sunset clauseAs to the sunset clause, the government believes that it is important that some discipline be imposed on the claims process and that those potentially affected by that process can be assured that, at the end of a reasonable time, native title issues will have been finally resolved. Subsection 13(1A) in schedule 2 is therefore maintained. The provision requires only that claims under the act be made within six years of commencement of the amendments. It does not otherwise prevent native title claims being made in the courts or the exercise of common law rights.Content of the BillAs mentioned above, the content of the bill is the same as the Native Title Amendment Bill 1997 as it was passed by the House of Representatives on 29 October 1997, but with the addition of a number of amendments later made by the Senate. On 6 December 1997 the House indicated its acceptance of 125 Senate amendments, the majority of which were moved by the government during the Senate debate. It has become apparent, however, that a small number of these amendments may not in fact have been `made' by the Senate. Having carefully considered the matter, the government has decided not to include these amendments in the reintroduced bill.Technical and drafting issues have arisen in relation to a number of the 25 non-government amendments accepted on 6 December 1997 which make it inappropriate for them to be incorporated into the bill. However, the government still supports the policy intent underlying those amendments and intends to move, or agree with, amendments designed to achieve the same outcome when the bill is debated in the Senate. Relevant non-government parties are being consulted on the form of the revised provisions.Finally, in relation to the small number of remaining amendments, after careful reconsideration and discussions with the other parties, the government has decided that there are substantial policy reasons why these amendments should not be incorporated into the bill nor be supported as amendments in the Senate. Very briefly, the government does not support the following ALP-sponsored amendments in their current form:. amendments which would prevent some of those whose interests are affected by a native title claim from being parties to the court processes (opposition amendments 242, 247, 248 and 249);. an amendment to provide that resources may be a relevant factor in deciding whether it is reasonably practicable for a representative body to notify native title holders on matters affecting their interests (opposition amendment 382);. an amendment which would render uncertain the compensation provisions as they apply where native title is only impaired (but not acquired) (opposition amendment 188);. an amendment which would prevent the states and territories from including more than one future act to which the right to negotiate applies in the notification sent to native title holders and advertised in notices to the public (opposition amendment 131).A total of 107 amendments have been incorporated and they are identified in the explanatory memorandum. The government will also be moving a number of new but minor technical and drafting amendments in the Senate.ConclusionIn the six months since this bill was introduced into the House on 4 September 1997, over 80 new claims for native title have been made, but there are still only two determinations on the mainland. One of those, the Hopevale agreement involving 11 separate groups of native title claimants and the Queensland government, represents the way forward in native title matters. This is an approach which would be significantly boost ed if the indigenous land use agreement provisions were in place.Since the bill was introduced, the Full Federal Court has held that parts of the Native Title Act which give the National Native Title Tribunal determinative powers are unconstitutional—an outcome which was anticipated but which makes enactment of the Brandy amendments more urgent.Since the bill was introduced, the government's argument for legal certainty about the effect on native title of a freehold grant, and whether this effect is temporary or permanent, and the need for a new registration test, has been substantiated by the seeking of an injunction by native title claimants in the Northern Territory to prevent government development activity on land over which there is a registered claim within the city of Darwin.I note that at the end of February the Federal Court upheld the position which the government sought to confirm in the bill—that native title is permanently extinguished by a freehold grant—a position initially opposed by the Opposition and which continues to be opposed by the Greens and Australian Democrats. The Federal Court also refused to grant the injunction.Since the bill was introduced, action has been taken by native title claimants in the Federal Court in Queensland to close down a mine currently employing around 250 workers, the argument being that the relevant mining lease, not having gone through the right to negotiate procedures, is invalid. The government believes it is in the national interest that these issues be resolved as soon as possible and that all groups have the opportunity to get on with making the act work and securing practical outcomes.The continuing controversy and uncertainty is damaging to the interests of all key groups and the government is aware of the community's frustration with the delay in securing passage of these important provisions. The government is confident that on further consideration, the Senate will support the bill and this long and difficult process can be brought to an honourable conclusion which is in the national interest.I present an explanatory memorandum to the bill and recommend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned.Bills788r381788Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.18:12:00788Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—The Higher Education Funding Act 1988 makes provision for grants of financial assistance to higher education institutions and other bodies for higher education purposes. It also establishes the higher education contribution scheme and the open learning deferred payment scheme, and it makes provision for the repayment of moneys that are lent by the Commonwealth to students under those schemes.The Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 amends the act in order to seek to achieve a number of things. It seeks to set the maximum grant amount for operating purposes for higher education institutions for the funding years 1999 and 2000; to vary financial assistance payable to higher education institutions for superannuation expenditure for 1998; and to set an upper limit for the following two years.The bill also seeks to vary the maximum aggregate amount of financial assistance which may be granted to higher education institutions in respect of their teaching hospitals for the 1998 funding year, and to vary the maximum aggregate amount which may be granted to higher education institutions for approved special capital projects for the 1998 funding year. There are a number of other sundry technical changes.The bill also presents us with the opportunity to consider some of the broader issues in higher education. Last week, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training heard from the National Union of Students and education unions. In the course of an inquiry into the appropriate role of TAFEs and how they relate to universities, we were told by representatives of both the student and teaching unions that no higher education contribution scheme or deferred payment scheme for TAFE should be considered, as this would discourage and deter people from going into TAFE. However, we have also heard that some institutions lend to students. Up to $500,000 a year is provided in some institutions in concessional fees. From what I can see, this compounds the problems for institutes drawing students from low income cohorts.There has been a lot said in this place in the last two years about equity in relation to higher education, but it is worth the House remembering that about 15 per cent of higher education students come from families earning the bottom 25 per cent of household income. In contrast, about 40 per cent of the higher education dollar is currently being spent on students from the top 20 per cent of household income, with an average income of $84,000 per year. In other words, the working-class battlers of this country have been paying for the education of others in institutions that their own children are not likely to see the inside of. The government's changes to HECS now bring more equity to the system so that those who are the primary beneficiaries of a higher education now make a more appropriate contribution to it—still, I must say, only 25 per cent of the cost of higher education on average.With fee paying places once government places are filled there are also now new opportunities for Australians who might otherwise miss out. It is worth the House remembering that, with all the rhetoric that has been said about up-front fees and fee paying places, about 360,000 students this year will face no up-front fees whatsoever. The government has also put in place around 1,000 positions for scholarships each year based on merit for disadvantaged students, particularly those from indigenous and rural backgrounds.The total number of undergraduate positions continues to rise—by an estimated 17,000 between 1996 and 1997. The actual total Commonwealth funding for higher education in the 1997-99 triennium does not drop below what Labor spent in 1996. If you look at total revenue from all sources, 1997's funding for higher institutions exceeded 1995's by some $460 million. Full fee paying positions further enhance these opportunities.Student contributions make students more discerning about both the quantity and the quality of education that they receive. They also force universities to focus much more on the needs and demands of students so that their activities relate much more to catering to the students rather than simply focus on existential survival, which, unfortunately, some universities have become preoccupied with in recent years.It is worth the House also remembering with some of the criticisms levelled at the government in relation to changes to HECS that in 1988 when HECS was introduced about 186,151 students were affected and by 1996 it was just under 236,000, but the number of university places increased from 283,000 in 1988 to some 470,000 places now. For those who are critical of the higher education contribution scheme, that would not have been possible without the very existence of HECS.In legislating funds for 1999 and 2000, the bill confirms to the sector the amounts that have been published in the higher education funding report for the 1998-2000 triennium. This should, hopefully, address the earlier criticisms that funding had been uncertain without legislating levels to the turn of the century.Some people have argued that the introduction of fees to the higher education sector has had a detrimental impact on demand and access, but this is not borne out by the facts. Nor, in a society with collapsing age dependency ratios and expenditures on health, education and welfare exceeding taxation receipts from PAYE taxpayers and company tax, is it a sustainable proposition. There are over 600,000 people currently in the system. The ABS 1996 census reveals that the number of people over the age of 15 obtaining a university degree has dramatically increased over the decade to 1996, increasing on average from about three per cent of the population to 7½ per cent, although in the ACT it increased from 11 per cent to 16 per cent, representing the socio-demographic nature of Canberra.Much has also been made of funding cuts, as they are described, to universities, with the 1996-97 budget reducing forward estimates for higher education operating grants by one per cent in 1997, three per cent in 1998 and a further one per cent for each 1999 and 2000. In addition, the government provided over $10.2 million for universities in need of assistance in restructuring and adjustment. These changes obviously got the universities' attention, but it has perhaps had its greatest impact on forcing them to focus much more on the future—what they do, how they do it and the needs of a society in which the utilitarian view of education confronts—perhaps as it did in 19th century Britain—that of learning, research and human development.When you look at the equivalent full-time student unit and you go back to 1983, you find that the then Hawke government provided $12,514 per EFTSU. In the ensuing five years it dropped 3.5 per cent to $12,081. The commitment of this government this year of $13,112 per EFTSU represents a 4.8 per cent increase on 1983 and an 8.5 per cent increase on the decade from 1988.One of the debates, amongst others, that was distilled down into a contemporary form by Roderick West's preliminary report into higher education is this constant tension between higher education having a utilitarian purpose only and higher education being principally concerned with human development and being a repository for learning and society perhaps understanding where it has been as much as where it is going. The debate about education last century was extremely polarised. Perhaps not a lot has changed in that regard, particularly in Britain where the utilitarians, for whom knowledge meant emancipation and power, argued for accessibility for all.Jeremy Bentham founded University College in London to disseminate knowledge to the community, believing that knowledge would emancipate people, particularly from low income backgrounds. The contrary view was based around humanist themes: the development of intellect, the inculcation of values, the ethics of education and learning, and the absorption of knowledge through debate and argument, particularly between teachers and students. Knowledge was seen to have a value in its own right.John Henry Newman—whose Dublin lectures in 1852 were published as `The idea of a university' in 1858—directed to the members of the then Catholic University in Ireland the liberal tradition of seeing university education as a development of both the mind and the personality. He fostered much of what remains today of this tension existing in contemporary higher and post-secondary education debate.Education needs to be able to cater for the diverse potential that exists particularly for young people, assisting them to achieve their own potential—whatever it is likely to be. The most important characteristic of a good education should be as Professor David Pennington said: learning how to learn. In his 1995 address to La Trobe University's Winter Conversazione `The idea of education and the cultural wars', David Pennington said this:I would not, for one moment, deny that vocational and applied education are important for at least two-thirds, if not three-quarters, of our young people in the post-school period. However, to suggest that vocational or technical education does not differ from the sort of education appropriate for the most intellectually able in our society, who can be extended in quite different ways is, in my view, a profound denial of society's responsibility in caring for its own future.What Pennington touched on just under three years ago was, in fact, I think where we are at the moment. There are a number of people in the education sector who are expressing a concern that what we are now doing is training people. I speak as someone who has been trained, as distinct from being educated. We are constantly looking at people learning or acquiring skills which are going to lead them to a job. I think there is a reasonable basis for being concerned that perhaps the importance of language, of history, of sociology, of understanding how we relate to one another, is being pushed to one side in a headlong push to train people for income earning activities.Whatever else governments do, whatever their political colour, I think we need to ensure that we have financing systems for higher education which do not actively discriminate against learning and personal development. It would be a great tragedy if we end up with a society where everybody is trained but, frankly, nobody is educated or perhaps able to think. Training also needs to be put into an educational context in terms of the past, and it needs to fit in terms of the framework of what as individuals and as a society we are trying to achieve.Excessive and centralised governmental control of universities in which perhaps prescriptive indicators of performance are applied, in my view, is a recipe for mediocrity. I think the current government is moving very much in the right direction in increasing the autonomy of universities and, whilst in the first sense this is applying in an appropriately limited way to financing, I think it is actually a healthy thing.I do not subscribe to the politics of mediocrity which say that everybody ought to be the same. I think everybody ought to have the opportunity to achieve their potential, whatever that is, but I think that when governments centrally say, `Well, all universities shall achieve the same educational and perhaps even the same financial sorts of standards,' what we are doing is trying to lift those who are not as capable as others at the expense of those who are perhaps the most gifted in society. Irrespective of the mechanism by which we finance higher education, it needs to recognise and cater for the diverse potential that is in human beings. Without it, both individuals themselves and society generally are likely to suffer.Turning specifically to funding issues, one of the best commentaries I have seen on this was in the 6 January edition of the Financial Review this year. It said:Although the Federal Government has introduced sensible policy changes that will reduce funding to Australian universities over time, taxpayers are still tipping too much cash into this over-regulated and over-protected sector. Listening to the nation's vice-chancellors, a casual observer could easily gain the impression that the tertiary education industry is in a state of impecuniosity verging on bankruptcy thanks to the meagre level of Government funding. But federal subsidies for universities are still $5 billion a year, including money for research. Governments provide 58 per cent of all university income; fees and student contributions only 25 per cent.Again, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the House, particularly those in the ALP, who, quite genuinely, are seeking to represent the interests of low income people: just remember what I said earlier—only 15 per cent of the predominantly young people receiving a university education when we came to government were from the bottom 25 per cent of income earning households in the country. What is happening is that the battlers in this country, the people who do carry the tax burden, are financing the education perhaps of people like me, although I do come from a modest background. They are paying predominantly for the education that is provided to others who will then go on to benefit from that, and their own children have increasingly found it difficult to see the inside of universities, particularly of sandstone universities. The Financial Review went on to say:This in turn would push universities into further improving the quality of their product. As this newspaper has reported over the past two days, the financial squeeze that tertiary institutions have faced over recent years has already induced a wave of change for the better. This has included more specialised and diverse course offerings, a greater focus on the employability of graduates and a sensitivity to the needs of consumers . . . Many universities have also shown entrepreneurial zest in entering the Asian market . . . It is worth noting that last year we had just under 63,000 overseas students in this country—86 per cent of them from Asia. I think one of the obligations of government and those who profess to lead is that when we see BHP, for example, announcing the closure of its steel works or its collieries or we see companies like Berlei relocating to Asia because of complex industrial relations and taxation problems here in our country, our responsibility is to open the future. We need to give young Australians an understanding that, whilst those industries will be important and continue to be important in our economic and social development, it is knowledge based industries—areas like higher education, multimedia, biotechnologies and health—and areas like that where a lot of our economic future lies. What we have to do is have an education sector, if not political leadership, that actually gives young Australians a sense of where we are going and opens the future as much as it does upon the closing of the past.The Financial Review went on to say:Clearly many academics and most universities are capable of skilfully adapting to a freer and more competitive market for their services. They should be provided with greater incentives and greater freedom to do so. Putting subsidies in the hands of buyers rather than sellers, preferably through a voucher system, is one crucial step.I am not suggesting that is something that I would support, but at least the Financial Review went on to make that point.I think what the government is essentially doing in higher education is right. It is really forcing universities to focus much more on the consumers and the beneficiaries of education and, in doing so, to give some sense of perspective to the greater social and economic responsibilities that higher education has.The danger I see, however, is that universities in the post-secondary education sector generally are pushing perhaps a little bit too much toward training and moving away from the value of education itself. As a society, I think we need to do everything we can to see that governments implement and sustain financing systems that do place as high a value on the importance of learning and personal development as they do specific training for a job. Learning for life is just as important as training for a specific task. It is important that we not just accept competency based skills assessment in terms of training but we also give some credence to the professional and personal development that underlies any knowledge or training or skill that a person might have.Sitting suspended from 6.32 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:00791Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, before I turn to the substantive part of my remarks I would like to move a second reading amendment to the legislation which was to be moved by my colleague the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Latham). Because of the nature of the sittings of the House, that opportunity was not available to him, so I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government:(1) for reducing funding to Australian universities, resulting in 21,000 fewer student places;(2) for the failure of its up-front fees policy;(3) for increasing HECS charges and lowering the repayment threshold such that applications for enrolment in undergraduate courses fell by 3.3 per cent in 1997 and a further 3.1 per cent in 1998;(4) for creating a crisis in science education by doubling the charge for university science courses; and(5) for its inadequate response to the challenges of globalisation in higher education".The opposition moves that amendment for obvious reasons. My colleague the member for Werriwa alluded to many of those in his contribution to this debate last week. But, beyond that, I believe that the case which we seek to make in relation to the government's higher education policy is now self-evident. The way in which the changes in HECS fees and funding cuts have impacted on higher education has taken a while to be felt, but are quite clearly evident now that the initial enrolment figures are in for 1998, and the impact of these changes will continue to be felt throughout the tertiary sector.If we look at the Commonwealth's record in the area of university funding, we see that the Commonwealth has a proud record of funding the university sector right across this country. The Commonwealth picked up this particular area of government some years ago; and, if pressed, I would admit that governments of both political persuasions, not just those of the party that I represent, have in the past made a contribution to the tertiary education sector. Unfortunately, we now have a government, and in particular a minister, totally focused on outsourcing, privatising and downsizing every aspect of the public sector—in this case in particular, our universities. So we no longer have that bipartisan commitment to funding of the university sector.It was the Whitlam government, in the early years of the 1970s, which really focused national attention on the importance of our universities and on ensuring an equality of opportunity to a wide range of students, not just those who could afford the then expensive fees attached to university courses but students from a wide range of working class and other backgrounds who were able, because of the reforms instituted by the Whitlam government, to attend university for the first time. Because of the substantial capital and other infrastructure investments which that government made in its three short years to the universities and to the tertiary education sector as a whole, the nation was made aware of the way in which universities and our tertiary education sector can deliver economic and cultural benefits for the nation as a whole.The Whitlam government introduced some massive changes to accessibility by students, to investment in university infrastructure, and to the way in which our community values higher education. Many of those things were supported by governments on both sides for the next two decades. But we now have a situation where a government, for the reasons that I have just outlined—those ideological obsessions on downsizing, on reducing the size of the public sector, on cutting back contributions from government, and on demanding user-pays fees from students on a scale never seen before—has begun to undermine the nature of our national commitment to the tertiary education sector.Universities are not slow to adapt to change. The university sector has seen more change, in fact, than probably any other area of Australian society—even more change than has applied to government as a whole, and certainly more than that which has applied to the private sector. Over the last decade, university enrolments have increased from some 421,000 to a current level of just over 650,000, a rise of 56 per cent—but during a period when academic staffing rose only some 15 per cent. International fee paying student enrolments, which have seen very significant changes in the last decade, have gone from just about 1,000 in 1988 to some 53,000 students 10 years later, which makes Australian universities a very substantial contributor to our national income—a level of export dollar earning which I think now exceeds some of our major primary industries like wool and beef.Indeed, those students have contributed a lot to Australia's position overseas. When they return to their home countries and they then take, as is often the case, leadership positions in their government and in their public and private sector, throughout South-East Asia particularly, Australia is well remembered by those students. The memories which they take home reflect well on Australia and in its endeavours in foreign policy terms and in terms of our economic and political influence throughout the region. But, of course, that image is now under threat because of the nature of the changes to university funding and student contributions which this government has implemented.Our universities are a major economic resource to the community, and I will cover some of the other areas and way in which they contribute to R&D in a moment. It is worth remembering that universities themselves are a very important focus of community activity. They deliver a great deal to the local community in which they are based, and it is not just in terms of academic learning, but also in terms of economic activity and in terms of the cultural contribution to that community. It is a contribution which is even more significant in the regional economies of our country. I was recently in Townsville and the impact of James Cook University in that local community is very substantial. Of course, that situation is replicated throughout Australia's regional economies.The major universities based in our capital cities are also strong contributors to the economic wellbeing of those communities. Indeed, universities are substantial taxpayers in their own right. So we should not just see the tertiary sector, as I think this government does, as simply another cost centre. We should see it in terms of its whole contribution to Australian life, not only in the academic context but also for the cultural and economic value which universities bring to the nation.Universities have very substantial challenges in front of them. Very many of those challenges have been imposed by the government but others are of a more general nature demanding a response from the government which we have yet to see. Globalisation, for example, has imposed significant strains on universities in all countries. Universities are now required to compete in a global marketplace for students rather than simply having as their natural birthright students from their local community. Indeed, we are seeing an increasing ability of students throughout the region to simply attend any university that they wish.It is for that reason that universities' reputations are very important to them as well. If a university can secure a substantial reputation for scholarship, for research and for the academic standards which it sets, then students will be attracted to those universities not only from within Australia's own educational pool of students but also, in terms of fee paying students, from outside Australia.I think recent history has demonstrated that Australian universities are able to more than hold their own with those of competitor countries. One might look at, for example, Canada, universities in British Columbia, the United States or the United Kingdom or other universities in Europe. Australia's universities have demonstrated that they are well able to attract students from our region and to hold those students because of the value which those students place on an education from an Australian university.Australia's universities have earned those reputations through hard work over many years, but that can readily be undone if the standards are allowed to fall and if overseas students perceive that we no longer fund our universities and the university research infrastructure at a level which ensures them of a good education. Those students, after all, like many Australian students, are paying substantial fees for their education and where full fee paying students from overseas are involved they are going to demand very high standards from the universities. If we do not provide the investment in those universities as we have in the past, then obviously numbers will suffer and the economic and geopolitical value, the community and cultural value, of those students to Australia will decline accordingly.Over the last few decades we have seen a substantial change in the way in which universities relate to the community. World War II was a very significant turning point for science and technology and for our understanding of the value of scientific research. Indeed, it was in that post World War II period in 1945 that Vannevar Bush, who was the director of the wartime office of science and technology policy in the United States, presented a report to the then President of the United States at his request on Science: the endless frontier. Vannevar Bush identified, quite correctly, the value which scientific research and technology can bring to society as a whole.World War II marked the turning point in our understanding of the impact of technology on everyday life, the impact of technology on economic growth and, indeed, the impact of technology on wealth and job creation. Studies in recent years concerning the 50-year period since World War II have revealed that very nearly half of all the wealth and job creation which has taken place in Western societies during that half-century has been due to research and development in science and technology. Often those discoveries have taken place in an academic context and not just an industrial context. Our universities are vital incubators of new and innovative ideas and they are teachers of students who can practice their craft at the leading edge of science and technology and then take that knowledge, experience and practical advantage into industry with them when they graduate.To understand the value of universities to our economy and the community we should also look very much at the way science and technology and high technology in particular benefit our economies, which they do in a number of ways. I am indebted to the Nation al Research Council of the United States for a recent report which analysed the way in which high technology firms benefit society. Those firms are associated with innovation. Those firms who have high levels of innovation tend to gain market share. They create new product markets and they use their resources much more productively.Secondly, high technology firms perform larger amounts of research and development than more traditional industries. If we look at the high technology companies which have evolved in recent times—for example, electronics, aircraft industries, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, advanced materials—all of those firms are associated with much higher levels of R&D than are the traditional industries. They contribute a disproportionate share of R&D expenditure and they should attract government support accordingly.These positive spill-over benefits from scientific research also generate new products and processes that lead to productivity gains and generate new manufacturing opportunities in other sectors of the economy. So we have seen that advances in electronics, in transistors, for example, have been a key enabling industry and a key technology for developing whole new manufacturing areas in other parts of the economy. So the spill-over effects are very substantial. It has been estimated that the return to a private company on R&D will be something in the order of 20 to 30 per cent, but the spill-over effects mean that the returns to society as a whole will be well over 50 per cent. That illustrates the point that private sector firms are often unable to capture the full benefits of R&D. Therefore, it is essential that society ensures collectively that the public benefits of R&D are captured for the benefit of the community as a whole, and the universities have a vital role to play in that.Private sector R&D in this country commenced from a very low base. We have always had a very strong public sector R&D, but our business sector has always been behind in OECD comparative terms when we look at their contribution to R&D. The previous Labor government identified this problem some years ago and instituted a very substantial taxation concession of 150 per cent of eligible R&D expenditure to encourage those private sector firms to contribute more to research and development. They responded very well to that incentive and to the options which were provided by syndication.Although this government has sought to ridicule as a rort some of those gains through the taxation system and their contribution to increased R&D by the private sector, the reality is that those gains were very substantial. Although we were coming off a low base, we had begun to see quite a substantial increase in R&D expenditure by private sector firms. However, that was very much put at risk by the decision in previous budgets of this government to reduce the concession from 150 per cent to 125 per cent. I have spoken about the problems which have arisen from that decision at other times in this House. I will not cover that ground again because I want to concentrate more on the impact which our universities have had in that area.The reality is that this government not only confined its research pruning activities to the R&D tax concession. They have also taken substantial funds away from our universities. University operating grants have been cut by six per cent in the period from 1997 to 2001.Without standard indexation for salary movements, the overall cutback will be about 20 per cent by the end of this year. Without indexation to reflect national productivity growth anticipated through to 2001, the cutback figure could come in at something like 30 per cent over the period. That is a figure which was identified by Professor John Niland of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee in a recent contribution to a seminar in Canberra held at the National Press Club and sponsored by the Federation of Australasian Scientific and Technological Societies to illustrate the impact of this government's funding cuts on university science.The reality is that our universities and their ability to provide a worthwhile science education are very much under threat. If we look at some of the recent trends in enrolment statistics, we can see that, while enrolments in science as a whole have increased faster than the average of enrolments for the university sector, the reality is that that has mainly been in the areas of the biological sciences—genetic engineering and molecular biology—and in the area of computing science. Those fields have seen substantial increases in student numbers. But the basic areas of fundamental science I am concerned about—mathematics, physics and chemistry—have seen a decline in enrolments. Those are the areas which have suffered in the approach which this government has taken to university funding and to science education in particular.The reality is that, where students can see a clear career path, where they can see the economic long-term benefit, they will be attracted to those courses. That has been the case with law and commerce, with medicine, with dentistry and the like. But where they perceive that society fails to properly value a career and a course, as in the case with physics, chemistry and maths, then those areas have suffered substantially.If our basic fundamental science is devalued, then Australia's ability to reap the benefits which are identified from high technology industries, from those areas of the economy which are very R&D intensive, will suffer in future years. Unfortunately, good science costs money to do. Good science education, whether it is at the primary level, the secondary level or the tertiary sector level, does cost money. That is the harsh reality of this business. The problem is that the returns from that investment, because it is not a cost as much as an investment, are a long time in coming.It has taken us 30 or 40 years to identify the gains which our society as a whole has had from the massive investment in R&D which took place after World War II. Very often the gains are unexpected. Who would have thought that, for example, those researchers who discovered the transistor in the late 1940s or those who identified at that same time the then obscure scientific phenomenon of nuclear magnetic resonance would have led now, 30 or 40 years later, to having MRI imaging technology in almost every major capital city hospital and the very important role that plays in medical treat ment? Who would have thought of the way in which the impact of transistor technology would spread right throughout our whole society in 30 or 40 years when those basic research decisions were being made in 1948? That continues to be the case.The Hubble space telescope, a very fundamental piece of basic research, has led to the development of new imaging correction algorithms because of the problems which were inherent in the optics of that telescope. The algorithms which scientists have developed to improve the quality of those images are now being adapted to ensure that imaging in mammography, a very important part in cancer detection in women, is in fact more accurately imaged and that potential cancer is detected much more reliably. The spill-off benefits from fundamental R&D are very hard to pick. They come about years after the research is undertaken and they are often quite surprising, even to the people who are involved in the original research itself.If we allow this threat to fundamental R&D in our universities to continue, if we allow this government to get away with the doubling HECS fees in science, withdrawing recurrent and infrastructure funding from our universities, that will threaten Australia's capacity to respond to the challenges of the next century, opportunities which will deliver job growth, wealth creation and fundamental benefits to our society in a way which no other contributor to the economy can. Our universities are in trouble. Science education in particular is at a crisis point. It is time this government recognised it and addressed those issues seriously.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. N.M. Dondas)—Is the amendment seconded?5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.20:21:00796Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLP10—As is traditional in this place with the present opposition, the member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans) closed his speech with a request for more money. It is an interesting aspect of the budget that, prior to the election of the Hawke and then Keating Labor governments, one can look at budget outlays by function and see that education in relative terms actually attracted more of the government's expenditures than health and in fact slightly less than defence. But, of course, one of the first actions of that government was to decide to change dramatically the way health services were delivered in Australia.So we have gone from a situation where defence got about $4 billion, education got about $3.75 billion and health got about $3.5 billion to one where we find health spending over $20 billion, education spending about $11 billion and defence spending $10 billion. That relativity is even worse when one looks at the fact that in those same figures of budget outlays by function the public debt interest is also nearly $10,000 million, probably about $1½ billion less than the expenditure on education.Why has that situation arisen? It is simply because throughout 13 years of a Labor government, if you were a little bit short, you just borrowed the money. Funnily enough, the people for which the member for Bonython makes a plea because, I think he believes, they need more help are the biggest losers from that policy because it is a policy of `let the children pay'. For you, Mr Deputy Speaker, some of the more mature members of this parliament and me, we will not be around long enough to pay back all the debt, the $100 billion, that is causing that $10 billion interest cost.But it seems outstanding and outrageous to me that a government could be standing here talking about how much it spends on education when it is only slightly more than what it spends on public debt. We as a government have set about doing something about that. In the process, certain people will be dissatisfied. But it is a courageous government that is prepared to stand up and say, `Here are the relativities. These are the losers, if you go down an irresponsible path. Good fiscal management is fundamental to good education services.'It is amazing because, quite frequently, I get letters—like you no doubt do, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your constituent role, and as the member for Bonython and the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith) do—telling me that the education system needs more money. I write back to them and say, `Here is that page in the budget—budget outlays by function. I draw to your attention some of the expenditures involved. From where do you suggest I take the money?' It is a peculiar fact that very few people reply. The odd one does and says, `Take it out of defence.' Of course, I grin a bit about that because I am old enough to remember seeing people parading in civvies with broomsticks on their shoulders learning to be soldiers to protect us from the war of 1939-45, which I lived through as a kid. That is a pretty silly proposition, particularly as that expenditure, as I say, has gone from being the top of those three important outlay figures to the bottom.There is no solution other than good management, and I want to touch on health for a while because that is one area that enrages me. We had a good system. We had 70 per cent of the population looking after their own health needs and the state governments quite capable, under their teaching hospital system, of looking after the rest. It is an interesting statistic, for what it is worth, that pre-Medicare the federal government expended $220 per capita on health and the general public could buy private health insurance for something like $500 per annum for their entire family, doctor and hospital. Today, the figures are $1,150 of federal government expenditure and $2,500 and rising for private health insurance. I will not go any further on that issue because it is not relevant to this bill, but it is relevant inasmuch as to where the money has gone. If anyone can tell me that is progress, that everybody is better off, I will go he.The member for Bonython also chose to talk about an issue of considerable interest to me—that is, the great task of research that arises from our tertiary institutions. I support him in his argument for recognising the very important role that universities and, might I add, the CSIRO, who was decimated by the previous government in terms of funding, contribute in their research programs and how important it is for government to retain a role because pure research is probably something that only government can really support.Not surprisingly, industry is looking for targets. Industry wants to charge a researcher with finding something it wants. I do not criticise it for that, but there is a reality that every now and then you have to have someone who looks at that mould growing on a pumpkin and says, `I wonder what that might do for humanity,' and they invent penicillin and, of course, all the derivatives that have come in the antibiotic sector.The reality is that someone has to do that and somebody has to put up some money. I am supportive of government doing that well ahead and in the health arena of paying me a subsidy of $18 or $20 for my first visit to a GP. I do not need it and nor does anybody attending this parliament. So why do we do it? We have now corrupted the medical profession because they think it is their money when in fact it is a rebate to patients. It was never a payment to doctors. That is just another problem you get when you do these things.The member for Bonython has made his speech and left—and I think it was a considered speech. But, of course, when we look at the second reading speech associated with this legislation, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) advised us as follows:Funding for higher education research through the targeted higher education research program has been increased over the 1997-99 triennium, with additional funding totalling $129.3 million including the $90 million for research infrastructure. The quality of research training is being enhanced through an additional $9.3 million in support for Australian Postgraduate Awards.And he goes on. So whilst I stand with the member for Bonython in supporting that form of expenditure, it is there. We have done it and that is a positive aspect.There are many other factors in this piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that is described as technical, but it has some fairly substantial and very important aspects to it. For instance, it gives certainty to the tertiary education sector to the year 2000 in big bites, because the minister informs us that the government has legislated to expend $3,581,640,000 in the year 2000 on tertiary education. That is a lot of money and, as I said, it is not more only because the previous government skewed their expenditure in other areas, particularly the health sector and public debt. If you do that, you end up with somebody missing out.You can get all philosophical about that, but there is a funny thing about education. When I was at school, two plus two equalled four. Paul Keating used to turn it into five, six or whatever suited him on the day. He told us he was bringing home the bacon and all those other sorts of situations, when he was just getting the country further into debt and, as I said, leaving it to the kids of Australia to pay off.I have another matter which I am concerned about and which I join this debate particularly to make reference to, and I have done so in this place before. We still have difficulties in ensuring equity of access to the tertiary education system. I will stand corrected at the margin, but the last time I recollect reading about this, the figures were that only nine or 10 per cent of rural and remote area secondary students were going through to tertiary education, whereas in the metropolitan area it was closer to 27 per cent.There is no doubt that there are equal degrees of intelligence amongst the students of rural and remote areas and the metropolitan areas. One of the most significant contributing factors to those very disparate statistics is the fact that it is all about money. It is extremely expensive to relocate your child or children away from home, even by a distance of 50 or 60 miles in old-fashioned terms, or 100 kilometres, if you like. No government yet has properly done anything about it. It is not an issue of how much money you have got; it is an issue of equity.I welcome, and thank the government for, its move with the common youth allowance—which I read the Labor Party is trying to knock off—to at least bring what was once an Austudy student into the rent assistance arena. That is very positive, but we still have a secondary hurdle; and I want to give to the House the following example.We do not have to talk about farmers, fishermen or those in business whom people tend to focus on when they think of country areas. Let us think about the fellow who works at the co-op store in a small country town. He is probably on a salary of $25,000 a year and probably votes Labor. Let us say he has a very bright son who has just got good marks at the local secondary school and has all the potential to be a brilliant student at university. But if that father is earning $25,000 a year—and there are probably a couple of other kids and a wife to look after—where does he find $5,000 to $10,000 to relocate that child into accommodation at a university in a capital city? He has not got enough. He has a discussion about this at the family dinner table one night and his wife says, `I used to be a school teacher,' or `I used to be a nurse,' or `Maybe I'll just go and work somewhere and I'll earn the $10,000 or $7,000 necessary to see that our kid can be relocated away from where we live and work and go to university.'Let us do the sums taking my simple arithmetic of $25,000 and $10,000. While the family is on $25,000 a year, they are eligible for Austudy but, if mum goes out and earns $10,000—which is necessary; that is the minimum you can earn living in the country to be able to afford to send your child away to university—they are no longer eligible for Austudy. They have hit the threshold. They are rich!You might be rich if your house backs on to the fence of the university, but you are not rich if you are living 100 kilometres away from the university. What is more—and isn't it funny—in all metropolitan regions, the richer you are, the closer you live to the university. That problem is not your problem. It is an issue that this parliament has got to confront. It is not a matter of means testing. It is just that one segment of the community is disadvantaged on the basis of access and the statistics prove it—nine per cent, 27 per cent. It is time we considered it on that basis.As I said, we are not talking about farmers' sons or anybody else. They would probably go. They would probably find the money. I know those who borrow it. But there are all those other people out there who work and get salaries which are often quite small—and let us remember, if you are earning $25,000 a year, you are paying something like $80 a week in tax. They have got to be helped too, and it is a fundamental issue for me. I have raised it in this place before and I want to raise it again and take the opportunity of this legislation to point it out. It is about as unfair as you can get. While we pay subsidies for people, we have got to recognise that particular situation.Strangely enough, we do something about isolated primary and secondary students. We have a non-means tested living away from home allowance if you have to send your children away from a pastoral activity or something like that. That is good and I appreciate it, but compared with the downside of tertiary education, it is a small issue. I really do plead with everybody to think about it because I think it is very unfair and it is something we want to have some attention on.In closing, having made the point on which I wanted to address the parliament, I welcome this legislation. It commits the government to some very substantial amounts of money, including, of course, some finetuning as it relates to meeting the costs of additional superannuation and the sorts of fluctuations that occur in funding these areas.I also want to say that I support entirely the concept of giving Australians a second chance. It may be that there are bright kids who just had a bad time when they did their tertiary entrance examinations or maybe there was some other contributing reason, but they missed the cut. They now have an opportunity that has been available to overseas students for a long time to at least say, `I will pay to go to university and I will pay up-front.' Again, it is equity.I have never been able to work out why, as a fundamental, we do not fund the student instead of the university. We know the bureaucracies of universities are not too keen on that idea because, of course, they see that as putting them in a market situation, and that makes them stammer a bit. The reality is that people should have buying power and governments should give assistance where it is needed, be it in education, health or anything else. I have a standard saying, `You should fund people, not institutions.' Institutions get an inflated view of their worth to the community and, over time, when governments say to them, `We think there is readjustment required in expenditure,' they are out there telling the people, `We're not doing this for us, you know. We're not doing this to sustain our security or our wages; we're doing it for you.'I cannot see any better way to `do it for you'—that is, for the taxpayer—than to send them some money in some form that, of course, restricts where they can spend it. It is commonly known as a voucher, and the education sector has worked assiduously over decades, if not centuries, to put a bad odour on vouchers. A cheque, of course, is a voucher, and I have never seen a schoolteacher that would knock one back.The realities are that a voucher system in education, health or any other area is worthy of consideration as a simple means of assisting those who need it, and it is a lot easier to target them. Let the education sector, the health sector or whoever else compete with the people who have the buying power as provided by government. I will stand by that view as long as I am in this place because I think it is simpler, fairer and more efficient.The reality is that we have taken some steps. We see a growth in university admissions, and we see some wonderful education being delivered. But, all in all, if education is to get more money, somebody has to decide at whose cost. I think some of the distortions in the budget that I have pointed to tonight might be the starting point.20:41:00799Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—In memory yet green, the member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) alluded to the old health system that he was supportive of: people taking out private health insurance and providing for themselves and the states taking up the burden of public hospitals. That was his preferred model for how the health system should operate. That is a system that was basically in place in the Menzies period, and it is the one that was reconstituted during the Fraser period of government.I am sure that in memory yet green for most of the members of the coalition government, and certainly for the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp), we have a similar point of view with regard to pre-existing education systems: those that pre-existed Labor's period of government from 1983 to 1996. It is in fact reflected not just in the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1997, the piece of legislation before us tonight, but also in some of the precursors. If we go to one of my favourites, the National Commission of Audit—not everything in that has been accepted, but it is the basic philosophical document for this government—and have a look at what it was recommending in terms of higher education, we find some very interesting things. In fact, at recommendation 4.20 on the level of funding—and this really is in memory yet green, and it is prospective—it says:Funding through scholarships (see recommendation 4.18) should replace all operating grants to universities and TAFEs. Institutions would be required to budget, plan and manage their total resource needs from revenues from the scholarships, HECS, student fees and other commercial revenues or bequests.In memory yet green, the Menzian education system was where most people could not get access to a tertiary education and where, if you did not have the money to pay the full fees, you had to be reliant upon winning a Commonwealth scholarship or a teachers college scholarship or being able to take up a position at university because of an understanding, agreement or bond that you had undertaken with a private employer. In those years, prior to the Whitlam reforms and to what was done by Labor between 1983 and 1996, that is how it operated.I think that the point of departure in relation to this recommendation is what has been done since 1996. This higher education legislation amendment before us tonight is about making the steps along the way because, where they argued that all operating grants to universities and TAFEs should be replaced, what do we find that this bill is in fact about? It is about capping the operating grants of the universities and placing those universities in a position where they have to deal with those capped funds and, as a corollary, they effec tively have to find funding from other sources.The person who has brought this legislation to the House is, in fact, the chief spruiker for this side show alley of a government that we have, the person who has trumpeted the benefits of a more privatised way of doing things, both in the employment area and in education. Before I go further to concrete parts of the bill, I want to take up another matter that was alluded to in his core argument over the first 10 minutes by the member for O'Connor. He argued that, when you look at the budget outlays by function under the Labor period, effectively too much was done in the education area and it became unbalanced. Other areas suffered because of Labor's increases in funding and this government is just re-weighting the balance.There is some other collateral proof of that position. The previous minister, Senator Vanstone, in a speech on 25 June 1996, cast her mind over the period of Labor government and what had happened in education. She went on to argue later that, in fact, a re-weighting was necessary because education was taking up too much of the budget moneys. I will briefly quote from what she said in relation to the Labor period:In 1996, Commonwealth expenditure on higher education will be some $5.3 billion, compared with $3.2 billion in 1983—growth in real terms of 67%.As a proportion of gross domestic product, Commonwealth expenditure on higher education has grown significantly from 1.18% in 1983/84 to 1.27% in 1993/94.As a proportion of Commonwealth outlays, expenditure on higher education increased from 3.0% in 1985/86 to 3.6% in 1995/96.To a senior officer sitting in the Department of Finance or the Treasury, these figures warrant immediate attention. From their perspective, these numbers tell a story of rapid growth, faster than most other areas of Commonwealth expenditure . . . From their perspective the picture is one of generous and expanding public subsidy.Not only did total Commonwealth funding rise by 67% over this period, it also rose when measured in per student terms.As a member of the Australian Labor Party, although not here at that particular time, I plead guilty to the former Labor government increasing expenditure in the higher education area by 67 per cent over the term of the Labor government. It was done for good and sensible purposes: to expand the number of higher education places open to all of the people in this community, to increase the rates at which students would finish year 12 and to increase the capacity of students to enter either university places or other TAFE and higher education places. So we plead guilty. We did put an emphasis on higher education. We did fund it very fully.Where the member for O'Connor argues that our notion of budget outlays by function was distorted because we had an over proportion of funds going into higher education, that was based on this simple premise: the infrastructure of Australia is not simply dependent on roads, rail and seaports. The human infrastructure of this country is vitally important and the public moneys spent in higher education are well spent in building the human infrastructure of the Australian continent.We come in particular to this bill and what it sets out to do in capping. As to background—I will be quoting at length from the Bills Digest produced by the information and research section of the library, in particular by Kim Jackson to whom I am indebted—`In the 1996-97 budget, that reduced the forward estimates for higher education operating grants by one per cent in 1997, a further three per cent in 1998 and a further one per cent in each of 1999 and 2000.' One plus one plus three equals a five per cent cut in the operating grants going from this Commonwealth government to the nation's universities. I have not just said that; this has come from the brief provided by the Parliamentary Library, and they are unbiased.Not only did that happen—we have a forward cut through those years of five per cent—but we also have a situation where the minister at the time indicated that there would be problems in the restructuring that the universities would have to undertake and funds for those would be provided. In 199798, we had a grand sum of $10.2 million provided to the universities for that. The higher education legislation of 1997 contained provisions for the minister to make grants to institutions for that restructuring and rationalising. But the grant levels were not in the legislation. This amendment bill is to supply us with those grant levels and to tell a bit of the fuller story.This does not happen in complete isolation, of course. We are not just getting some figures here to add to the previous legislation. This background paper shows that there are some very interesting outcomes when you take a look at how this whole picture fits together. Let us look ahead three years, as the government sought to do, at what is happening in education funding. We can look, as this paper points out, to the report entitled Higher education funding report for the 1998-2000 triennium, produced in December 1997. That report forecast that total revenue available to higher education institutions from all sources—I emphasise `all sources' because the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, often seems to omit the fact that this is from all sources—would increase by an estimated $8.4 billion in 1997 to around $8.6 billion by the year 2000. I quote:The report states that this estimated increase in total resources will be primarily due to projected increases in revenue from fee-paying students, both local and overseas.So part of the top up the government expects will come not only from the continuation of students from overseas—and, in particular, Asia—but also from fee-paying students within Australia. You would now have to rejig the forward estimates in relation to Asian students because of the situation that Asia finds itself in. Already, the indication is that many students will not be continuing with their education—or not beginning it—in Australia as a result of that economic downturn.When the previous Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Senator Vanstone, introduced full fee paying places—and therefore the opportunity to gain a place at a university—the eight universities that signed up for it said that could be done. It did not matter that people would have a TER of about 10 points less, people would be able to pay their way into those courses. We have already seen one of those universities very quickly saying, `Yes, we can see our operating grants being cut. We have problems in getting other sources of income to bolster paying staff and paying for the running of this institution.' One of those institutions has backed off this year, and that is the University of Technology in Sydney. In an article from the Sydney Morning Herald, Luis M. Garcia indicates:The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Technology, Sydney, Professor Tony Blake, announced last week—and this is an article from the end of February—that his university would not offer full-fee places for the 1999 academic year.We have got only two major universities in Sydney continuing to offer those full fee places: the University of Sydney and the University of New South Wales. It was expected and projected by this government that about 600 places would initially be offered. Sydney and New South Wales universities have 150 full fee paying students at the moment. The amount of money which was to have come from the other 450 is now not a source of funding. The fact that UTS knocked it back indicates that they are no longer as eager as they previously were for this approach to solving their funding problems. In fact, the Vice-Chancellor said:. . . the original predictions by the Government of universities making millions of dollars a year from full-fee students, had clearly been based on "questionable assumptions".They are not merely questionable assumptions because of what has happened in Asia but, far more directly, questionable assumptions in terms of the students who will not be lining up to pay very hefty fees: in arts and commerce, $9,000 to $11,000 a year; in law, $10,000 to $15,000; in science and engineering, $13,000 to $15,000 a year; and in dentistry and vet science, $20,000 to $24,000 a year. So the government is in a bit of trouble over full fee paying places.In memory yet green, the Menzies government had full fee places. If you were not in a position to pay those full fees in a very contracted university system, if you were quick enough and good enough and you were able to get a scholarship, you might have been able, as part of the deserving poor, to get into a narrow education system by winning your way through scholarship. That is the direction we are heading back to in relation to what is being done here.This paper also makes some very interesting comparisons. If you have a look at what has been provided by DEETYA, the funding figures in this bill do not correlate, as this paper points out, with the actual amount of funds that they expect to get. It is not an actual reflection of the total funds available as a result of government policy. If you look at what is provided by DEETYA in total grants available for institutions over selected years, you will see that it was $5,463.1 billion in 1997 declining to $5,289.9 billion in the year 2000.But that is not the total picture. When the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, deals with our allegations that he has cut funds and places, he absolutely denies that anything like that has happened. As the chief spruiker for this government in this area, one would expect him to do so. He denies that there have been cuts.This Bills Digest provided by the Parliamentary Library actually shows another way of looking at what has been said. It gives this reasoning as to why there is not a correlation and it relates to funds from all sources. I quote from page 3:These figures do not readily correlate with those contained in the Bill because they include funds made available through HECS.We know that HECS has been increased differentially as a result of the 1996 budget. Those students who did not take up university places because they would not have been able to bear the on-costs, those students who did not take up university places because they would have had to start paying not at $25,000 a year of income when they finished their course but at $20,701 as provided in the government's legislation, those students who never got a start, who may have gone off to the TAFE system to find they are in a position where the Commonwealth no longer really wants to fund the TAFE system and does not want to bring it along as Labor did and have a better funding regime and a better resourcing of that TAFE system to build a better multi-tier education system in this country—those students who were knocked back because of those increases—would be very interested to hear this point from this paper. After making the point about the figures not completely correlating, the paper continues:For example, the grants for operating purposes given in the Bill for 1999 . . . represent a reduction of 17.4 per cent on 1998 operating grants, rather than the one per cent reduction indicated by policy.Only a 16.4 per cent difference. Thank you, Dr Kemp, chief spruiker. The quote continues:This is because they reflect the savings made through the 1996-97 Budget decisions on HECS.The paper then gives a table of savings from HECS, running into the out-years. The HECS rates in 1997-98 were $66.1 million; in 1998-99, $101.1 million; and in 1999-2000, $123.5 million. The lower HECS repayment thresholds for 1997-98 were $229.9 million; for the next year, $269.7 million; and for 1999-2000, $317.8 million.So from all Dr Kemp's sources we have a different set of figures and a different set of correlations. But this independent paper indicates that, instead of government policy arguing a one per cent reduction, we have a reduction of 17.4 per cent on 1998 operating grants. This is not only about putting levels and caps on the operating grants but also about cutting them by 17.4 per cent. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon N.M. Dondas)—I call the honourable member for Stuart.21:01:00803Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I am the honourable member for Sturt, Mr Deputy Speaker.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—How could you forget?9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—No, Stuart is a name that means something to me. My forebear was on John McDouall Stuart's expedition to northern Australia. However, my seat is named after Charles Sturt.Before I turn to the substance of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 , I would like to deal with the pious amendment that was moved by the member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans). The first two clauses of the member for Bonython's amendment read:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government:(1) for reducing funding to Australian universities, resulting in 21,000 fewer student places;(2) for the failure of its up-front fees policy;I think it is very important in the initial stage of this debate that some of these furphies from the Labor Party opposition are put to rest. The whole point of the government's reforms in the higher education area has been to try to create opportunity for young people to gain access to universities, young people who have not previously been given the opportunity to do so. Some might ask the question: how could that be so through introducing up-front fees for the 25 per cent of places over and above the Commonwealth funded places? I will explain it to the House. The facts are that for too long many people who could not get their first choice of university course chose to do their second course. In doing so, they denied somebody access to perhaps their first preference because that preference was taken by somebody who had been pushed out of their first preference.Under the government's changes, everybody will now have the opportunity to take their first preference, except in the medicine course, if they can afford to pay the up-front fee for the 25 per cent of places over and above the Commonwealth funded places. However, if they cannot afford to do that, there are more Commonwealth funded undergraduate or HECS places available than there were under the Labor Party. So nobody is worse off through the government's changes. In fact, there are some people who are much better off: firstly, the people who get their first preference courses for their university education and, secondly, the people who would have lost their opportunity to do their first preference courses because somebody else had taken that HECS-funded place. So there are winners on both sides of the equation.In 1997, 17,000 new enrollees started at university in Australia. So, in the climate when the Labor Party were claiming that the sky was falling in, like Henny Penny, there were 17,000 new places at universities and undergraduate HECS funded places. This is at the same time—1996-97—that 55,000 new TAFE enrolments were received. Later I will explain why this is important.This government has maintained funding per capita per student at $11,200 for university undergraduates. This is one of the very important measures of a government's commitment to the university sector and to students. Under the Labor Party, from the Dawkins reforms until we came to government, that funding suffered a steady decline from very significant levels to very low levels. This government, because of its changes, because of its reforms, has been able to increase the funding per student and maintain it at $11,200.The member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) claims that we have an up-front fees policy, and I think it is very important that we put paid to that suggestion. This is the rhetoric that has run through the universities on a regular basis. We have more Commonwealth funded HECS places than Labor offered. For the Labor Party to claim we have an up-front fees policy and to suggest that everybody is paying up-front fees, I would remind the Labor Party that this government is providing more Commonwealth funded HECS places than it did. The Labor Party introduced HECS—after promising not to do so—when I was at university. I remember it very well. The Labor Party, after promising the student body that it would not introduce the higher education contribution scheme, had no compunction in introducing it. Later I will get to the many changes and backflips that it made along the way.We have given Australians the same opportunity to go to university and pay for their places at university that the Labor Party offered to overseas students for many years during their 13 years of unhappy government. I think that is very important to remember. The Labor Party were very happy for people from outside Australia to come to this country, pay for places at university and provide support for our economy. However, they were not prepared to allow Australians the same rights and access, which has absolutely no logic at all. I would challenge the member for Barton (Mr McClelland) to explain how it was logical for the Labor Party to provide support for overseas students to come to this country but not Australian students.In answer to the first two points of the pious amendment, we have introduced new flexibility for universities so that they can gain new streams of revenue. We have introduced new flexibility for the management of universities that vice-chancellors are very happy to accept. They will be able to use this flexibility to try to improve their universities, to increase the number of students and the number of places they offer, and to improve the quality of the education that they offer to young people. The third and fourth paragraph of the member for Bonython's pious amendment read:(3) for increasing HECS charges and lowering the repayment threshold such that applications for enrolment in undergraduate courses fell by 3.3 per cent in 1997 and a further 3.1 per cent in 1998;(4) for creating a crisis in science education by doubling the charge for university science courses . . . This amendment comes from a man whose government increased the higher education contribution scheme twice in the last parliament, introduced HECS in the first place, and introduced full fees for postgraduate courses during its terms in office after an election in which it had promised to do the opposite. Because of its closeness to the Labor Party, the National Union of students, which is supposed to represent students, failed miserably to at any stage oppose or condemn the Labor Party for breaking the promises that it had made to students, hand on heart, before its election.Let us put to one side the nonsense in this pious amendment that the Labor Party actually cares about students. It only cares about whether students vote and who they vote for; it does not care at all about benefits or disad vantages to students. There is no evidence to suggest that applications have fallen because of HECS. It is important to understand that applications are not the same as enrolments. While the Labor Party is happy to sprout so-called facts about applications, it forgets to talk about enrolments.In 1997, while applications fell by 3.4 per cent, enrolments increased by 4.9 per cent. HECS seems to have little to do with students' choices about whether they start higher education. The proof of the pudding is in the eating: enrolments in arts, which is the cheapest HECS course, fell by four per cent; enrolments in science, which is the middle HECS category, fell by two per cent; while enrolments in law, which is the most expensive HECS category for undergraduate courses, rose by 0.6 per cent.Madam Deputy Speaker, you are an intelligent person, and you would realise that, if what the Labor Party is saying were true, there would have been an increase in the applications for arts because of the cheapness of the category. There would also have been an increase in the applications for science, and there would have been a decrease in the applications for law, because it is the most expensive category. In fact, quite the opposite has happened, and that gives the lie to the suggestion of the Labor Party that HECS is influencing students' decisions about undergraduate courses.We have to understand why applications are changing. It would be good for the Labor Party to catch up with some of these changes as we are going into the 21st century. I know that the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) is an unreconstructed leftie from the 1970s, a trade union leader in a suit, but it is 1998. The member for Batman has to realise that, because he is in a safe seat, he is going to be a member of parliament well into the next century. Therefore, he should try to catch up with some of the changes in our economy and understand why things are happening.For example, students these days are much more discerning about the courses they choose to take. Universities are now part of the market for higher education and so they need to offer courses and match students to courses that students want, as opposed to the courses that universities want to offer. Because of the government's excellent changes in vocational education and training, which I know have been endorsed privately by the member for Batman, there has been a massive increase in the number of people in TAFE—55,000 in 1996-97. Some 220,000 new apprenticeships are starting this year and next year and, because of that, fewer people need to start at university who might want to choose other options. They are taking up those other options.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What about the last year and the fall off?9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—It is no coincidence that applications fell the most in New South Wales where, coincidentally, there was the largest increase in new jobs in the last quarter. I am not absolutely certain of the figure, but I think that 90,000 new jobs were created in New South Wales alone in the last quarter of last year. This means that students have a lot more options than they had before, which means that they are less inclined to go on to tertiary education if they think that that is not what is good for them in terms of their careers.Turning to science enrolments, science applications have fallen by 1.9 per cent in 1998, while overall applications have fallen by 3.5 per cent. Where is the crisis in science applications? Science applications have actually fallen by less that the 3.5 per cent that applications have fallen by across the board. In 1997, science enrolments—remembering the difference between applications and enrolments—actually rose by five per cent. I defy the member for Barton to produce the evidence of a crisis in science applications.The other important thing for the member for Batman to remember as part of his pledge to try to up-grade and modernise his thinking for the next century, is that a lot of people who would previously have studied physical science are now moving into computer science streams at university. As a consequence, the share of enrolments in computer studies at schools has increased to four per cent from 0.4 per cent, and that has been mirrored at universities. In 1997, enrolments in mathematics and physical sciences fell by 5.1 per cent and 1.9 per cent respectively, but computer science enrolments increased by 14 per cent.There is also considerable variation in the pattern of science applications. In Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania, applications for science courses increased—6.1 per cent in Queensland, 0.6 per cent in South Australia and 1.2 per cent in Tasmania—so I defy the Labor Party to produce evidence of a pattern across Australia of a massive collapse in science applications. It simply is not true. The member for Bonython's pious amendment is aptly named, but it is also disingenuous, unctuous and sanctimonious, and it should be exposed for the tripe that it is.The accomplishments of a nation's higher education system are measured by many factors. It is essential that Australia's tertiary institutions not only continue to maintain world-class standards but continue to set higher standards to remain competitive in the world market. The introduction of fee paying students, both overseas and Australian, will lend itself to continuing our competitiveness in the international higher education market. The regulated fee paying student system means that Australian universities have a strong financial incentive to deliver a high quality product to Australian and overseas students. This will also have spin-off benefits for non-fee paying students.The coalition government also recognises that high endeavour deserves recognition and reward. Accordingly, the Committee for University Teaching and Development was established in July 1996. With a $20 million budget over a three-year period, the committee makes recommendations for grants to encourage practical development and improvements in teaching and for the provision of staff development initiatives. In recognition of the outstanding work of educators, this government is committed to enhancing the status of teaching. The Australian Awards for University Teaching recognise excellence in teaching which surpasses the elevated standards that already exist in our higher education system. Funding arrangements for higher education research through the targeted higher education research program have been increased over the 1997-99 triennium with additional funding totalling $129.3 million, including the $90 million for research infrastructure. The quality of research training is being improved through an additional $9.3 million in support for Australian postgraduate awards.This government has also overseen improvements to the funding of collaborative research grants. This has now been realigned in the strategic partnerships with the industry research and training scheme and has enjoyed an increase of over $30 million. This collaborative funding arrangement will produce stronger partnerships between industry and universities, providing mutually beneficial opportunities for researchers in both sectors in addition to encouraging and assisting universities to diversify their funding sources.In considering the amount of resources available to the higher education system, it is essential to look beyond the government's direct contribution and to consider the total level of funding which is available. At present, while the government remains the single largest source of funding, approximately 33c in every university funded dollar comes from non-government sources. All indications suggest that these revenue sources have the potential for significant increases. Indeed, it is estimated that by 1999 total university funding from all sources will increase by approximately $650 million from the 1995 funding amount available to Australian universities.This government also acknowledges the commercially strategic importance of attracting students from overseas. While the Asian financial crisis is having an expected temporary effect on the exponential growth of fee paying Asian students participating in Australian universities, the Australian tertiary system is still a very competitive alternative to most other countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Furthermore, currency devaluations may work to the advantage of Australian universities, in many cases by widening the cost gap between our education export market and those of other countries vying for a share of the lucrative international education market.The simple fact remains that Australia's tertiary institutions have an enviable reputation overseas and should therefore continue to capture a very significant share of the education export market. Although there has been a 26 per cent fall in student numbers from South Korea and a seven per cent fall from Thailand, it has been countered to a certain extent by strengthening numbers in enrolments from students from Indonesia, China, Vietnam and India. Possibly as a result of social unrest in their home country, Indonesian students studying in Australia have increased by 11 per cent, Chinese students have increased by nine per cent and, significantly, Vietnamese student numbers are up by 46 per cent and students from India are up by 41 per cent.This government also recognises that a modern education must place an emphasis on individual skills development. Students and trainees with qualifications which meet the needs of the business community not only are an attractive employment proposition but add to the skills base of Australian industry and research to the benefit of all Australians. This is fundamentally why one of the government's main priorities is to ensure that every young person wanting to pursue education or training after the compulsory years of schooling has the opportunity to do so.At present, approximately one-quarter of all 16- to 18-year-olds in Australia are not participating in any form of post-compulsory education or training. This is why the coalition government believes that further education and training should be inclusive of, and not exclusive to, any section of the community. Alternatively, the former Labor government supported a tertiary education system which was limited to a privileged number of students and an apprenticeship system which had a minimal impact on both young people and the business sector.By increasing the number of further education opportunities available to young people, the coalition government is also very mindful of the importance of increasing opportunities for groups that have been previously underrepresented in higher education. This government has introduced merit scholarships to encourage an increase in student participation by people with disabilities, from an indigenous background, from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, from rural and isolated areas or from non-English speaking backgrounds. In many cases, access to further education can give people from these groups the freedom to pursue their dreams and to live more independently. In this respect, the introduction of merit scholarships by this government has been very significant.Merit scholarships provide exemptions from the HECS charge to the equivalent of 1,000 full-time students each year. By the year 2000, the scholarships will provide HECS exemptions for the equivalent of 4,000 full-time students every academic year. This is an outstanding achievement of the coalition government.It all demonstrates this government's resolve to reinvigorate Australia's higher education system so that it continues to remain world class and becomes more accessible to young and old Australians who wish to seek further education. The Labor Party have no credible plan to make the education system more accessible to all Australians, but they are asking the Australian public for absolution for their 13 years of inactivity and lack of imagination when in government. Meanwhile, the coalition government continues to make more opportunities available for more young people. (Time expired)21:21:00807McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I oppose the second reading of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 and support the amendment moved by the member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans). There was some hypocrisy in the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne). In his concluding words he said that the philosophy of the current government was to ensure that Australian universities `remain' at the international standard that they are respected for—or words to that effect. Necessarily, he means `respected for' their present status achieved over the period of all previous governments, certainly those from the 1970s.At that stage, after admitting that Australian universities are of world standard, how can he dare criticise the initiatives of the former Labor government? In fact, the tragedy of all of this is that most of the initiatives that have occurred have had bipartisan support. Until the more ideologically hamstrung Howard government, all parties had favoured the development of Australia's talent base. That is now not the case.The greatest indictment of this government was—I will quote the member; I think it is a fair quote—`Everyone can take their first preference if they can afford to pay.' That is the result of user-pays. If you can afford to pay, you get to use. If you cannot afford to pay, you do not get to use. They say, `Hold on, there is a whole range of other courses available here,' but the facts of the matter are that people are going to be paying these very hefty enrolment fees of $100,000 to $120,000 a course. They will not be paying them for lower TER arts degrees. They will not be paying them for lower TER commerce degrees. They will be paying them because they cannot get the TERs to get into the elite courses such as medicine, law, dentistry and vet science.So what is happening is that those 25 per cent of places that are being earmarked as private full fee paying places will be those in the elite courses. That is going to have some fundamental effects on the future structure of society, and I will say something during my speech on that. The member says, `Look, we have identified 25 per cent of places, but we have not disturbed the totality of existing places.' I have already said that the totality of existing non-full fee paying places will most likely be in the non-elite courses.Aside from that, I was put to a challenge, and I will put the other side to a challenge. Tell me one university or tertiary education institution that has built an additional building. I will be satisfied with an additional room; I will be satisfied with an additional demountable. Tell me one university or higher education institution that has employed one additional staff member. They cannot because in fact 3,000 have lost their jobs or departed the sector over the past year. If you do not have new buildings, if you do not have new lecturers, how can you say that those 75 per cent of places are the 100 per cent of places? They clearly are not. Clearly, 25 per cent of places being earmarked as private full fee paying places have been taken out of 100 per cent, leaving 75 per cent for those who cannot afford to pay their fees.My little niece, Jacqui, will be doing her high school certificate at the end of this year. She is fortunately doing very well at school. She has a lot of opportunities ahead of her, and she has the prospect of making those elite courses but, effectively, 25 per cent of those elite courses have been taken away from her prospects. She will be competing for 75 per cent of those elite courses.It is just nonsense for anyone on the other side to say that is fair, that is equitable and that is part of the Australian way. I can remember sitting for my high school certificate was indeed more stressful than an Australian Labor Party preselection. It is a very stressful occasion. The facts of the matter are that there will be a rise in the stress levels and the pressure placed on those 75 per cent of students whose mums and dads cannot afford the spare $100,000 or $120,000 to pay their full fees. Effectively, 25 per cent of their opportunities have been taken away from them.So that is something that I feel particularly strongly about. It is something that is particularly reprehensible and quite un-Australian and contrary to the bipartisan support that existed until we had this more ideologically fanatical government. They are obsessed with this user-pays/free market philosophy. The tertiary education sector has now become an industry. It is not a service to individuals, it is not a service developing Australia's future talent and resource base, it is now an industry. These universities are businesses competing within that industry.That brings me on to the next point: how this philosophy has fundamentally affected my electorate. In my electorate I have the St George campus of the University of New South Wales at Oatley. What has occurred is that there has been quite a lot of money—I think it is about $11 million—and 1,100-odd student places taken away from the University of New South Wales. So they have asked, `How do we make this up?' They have said, `We are in this brave new world. We are in the free market economy. We are going to have to, in the future, attract these 25 per cent of full fee paying places.' Of course, they are saying, `Who is going to pay a full fee?' Again, as I have said, they are in the elite courses. They are also saying, `What other avenues are there available for earning money?' Of course, they are in the research facilities, whether it is pharmaceuticals, engineering or medicine or other forms of research.So what is being taught at the St George campus of the University of New South Wales? What do we have out there? The vice-chancellor says, `We have one of Australia's premier teacher education facilities for teaching primary and infant students at a stage when they are developing their literacy skills. We have a very sophisticated sports-science facility out there—one that contributed to Australia's cycling success in the last Olympic Games.' Is anyone going to pay a quid to get into those courses? They say, `No, we are not going to make much money out of that. How much is it costing us to run that campus out there?' The conclusion comes up, `That is expendable.'So the University of New South Wales, as a result of these financial pressures, and as a result of the future pressures to earn more money—indeed, to earn money to survive in this brave new world—has said the campus is expendable and is shutting it down. It is shutting it down despite the fact that it is one of Australia's premier teacher education facilities. It is a purpose-built facility, ideal for what is being taught. It is a world leader indeed in the use of computer technology for educational purposes at the childhood level. It is the only university in southern Sydney for 500,000 people. That includes my electorate of 120,000 people and the matter also vitally concerns the marginal seat of Hughes, held by Mrs Vale.This sale is being considered despite the fact that the University of New South Wales was given this very significant public resource by Minister Metherell of the Liberal state government in the late 1980s for a payment of $1 and despite the fact that all the documentation at that time indicated the intention that the university was to hold it, effectively, on trust, to serve the higher education needs of southern Sydney and to provide education for the educators.All this appears very unjust in terms of the history of that institution and the success it has achieved, and indeed is still achieving despite a very significantly depleted morale. It is grossly unjust for the campus to be closed. But the University of New South Wales is saying, `Look, we are in a business here. We are no longer service providers; we are no longer educators. We can make a quid out of this university. We cannot make a quid because we cannot get people to pay full fees nor can we do research, but we can lease it or we can sell it and that is going to be a good little earner,' as is said in the TV program Minder.The St George campus, instead of being a vital teacher education facility, is becoming a good little earner. The University of New South Wales is going from educator to landlord and the government seems to suggest that that is appropriate. In June last year I asked a question without notice of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) as to whether he would intervene in the situation. He candidly said, `No, the government's policy is that these things are matters for the autonomy of the university concerned.' Departmental representatives have been cross-examined before Senate estimates committees and they are in favour of the University of New South Wales becoming a landlord rather than an educator because it is part of the overall business plan of these universities now. That is what they have to have: they have to have business plans. They do not have to have aspirations to develop Australia's educators and in turn for those educators to develop Australia's talent base for the future. That is not their concern. They are running a business.The Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) himself has, I understand, been approached by the member for Hughes for a meeting with representatives of the St George campus. To my amazement, I found out that that meeting had been declined, despite the fact that the member for Hughes, I have to say, has been devoted to this issue, as have I. Despite her making that request, and despite the fact that she has to win an election, probably in a few months time, in a marginal seat, the minister's office declined the meeting. Instead, of the Liberals, what is on offer here?I say this to up the ante. Last Friday I attended the campus with the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham), the shadow minister for education. He inspected the campus, the purpose-built facilities, the video rooms, the computer rooms, the sports facilities, and he said, `You cannot let a public resource like this go.' He has made a commitment that Labor will ensure that the teacher education facility at the St George campus will continue, even if it means facilitating the transfer of the campus to the University of Wollongong. Detailed proposals have been put forward by both the St George campus and the University of Wollongong as to why that is practicable and how it could be achieved with a payment of about 4½ million over a four-year period. They have sat down and drawn up their figures sensibly and that is all it would require to achieve the survival of the St George campus. But the minister has literally done a Pontius Pilate. He has literally washed his hands of the issue. The people of southern Sydney, if this government goes beyond the end of the year, are going to lose a very vital teacher education facility.I have concentrated to date on the unfairness to the individuals and also the effect that this market driven mentality has had on a very significant local institution. Indeed, I am sure that situation is being reflected in many regional institutions. I would also like to comment on, from the point of view of the amendment moved by the member for Bonython (Mr Martyn Evans), just what effect this government's policy has had on Australia's future industry base.It has to be seen in the context of the introduction of increased HECS charges from about $2,700 to almost $5,000 for science, which has caused a significant problem. Indeed, Vice-Chancellor Niland, despite my disagreements with him in respect of the St George campus, has been on the record as saying the effect that this is having on the development of science is as catastrophic as a major drought. Although it was a year before my birth, I know the consequences of the Russians launching the Sputnik in 1957. The Western world was caught short by seeing the Russians with this space technology ahead of the world. The space technology, of course, was allied to the use of missile launching facilities.What happened after that? There was a panic. In New South Wales the Wyndham scheme was introduced to increase the maths and science literacy of the student population. I remember when I did my higher school certificate, for instance, that if you did first level science and maths you effectively got the marks equivalent for three subjects where you studied only for two. There was a very concerted effort that lasted a good 20 years to increase the science base of Western countries—a number of countries were like ourselves. That paid dividends. Australia has, in recent years, created about two per cent of all world inventions, despite our small population.Without the government sponsoring, developing and promoting the university sector, including opening up the use of research and development grants, that science base that we have developed is at serious risk. The government should look very closely at what is happening in the allocation of education resources. Again, because of this concept that all these universities are autonomous, that they can all compete, catch and kill their own, there is no coordination as to what they are going to develop—whether it is teacher education or science—or how they can contribute to the Australian economy.I indicate to the government that the lack of appropriate resourcing of Australian universities is a matter of concern for the public generally. A poll taken last year on behalf of the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee showed that 65.6 per cent of Australians believed that Australia should be spending more on higher education and certainly more than our Asian neighbours. The Asian nations which look like weathering the economic troubles in the region are Taiwan and Singapore. Taiwan spends 11 per cent of its gross domestic product on education, Singapore 17 per cent and Australia only 5.3 per cent. Sixty-five per cent of Australians say that we should be doing better than they are. We should significantly up the ante. Only 5.8 per cent said that we should spend less, which is what this government, no matter how it wants to bodgie the figures, is doing. A total of 60.3 per cent of Australians surveyed thought that the priority this government gives to education is too low and only seven per cent thought the government gave too much priority to education. An overwhelming 94 per cent agreed that universities were important for shaping Australia's long-term future.The Prime Minister quite frequently gets up and says, `You are seeking more taxpayer funding for universities. What about those battlers who have no aspirations for their kids to go to universities?' With respect to him, he is putting a chip on their shoulder which they themselves do not have. While they may not have aspirations for their own children, they appreciate the importance of education for all Australia. If it is their neighbour's kid, their niece or nephew, they appreciate that education is a great resource.The figures indicate that if you have a tertiary education qualification your prospects of unemployment are diminished by a massive 50 per cent. Australians appreciate the individual significance. But, more importantly, they do not have this small-minded mentality; they appreciate the significance of Australia's higher education sector for Australia. That is something this government do not do. They have put ideology ahead of national goals—goals which we should achieve not only for individual Australians but also for the nation as a whole. (Time expired)21:41:00811Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I am very pleased to be following the honourable member for Barton (Mr McClelland) tonight. Like him, what I want to do is focus my remarks particularly on the economic impact on Australia but also on the university that happens to be in my electorate, the La Trobe University. I am also very pleased to be able to support the Labor amendment which highlights to the House and to the Australian people the folly of the Howard government's reforms and changes to Australian universities.It is the case, as so many have said before us, that the prosperity of our nation to a very large extent is determined by the skill and knowledge of our people. This has become increasingly so as the effects of globalisation have impacted on national economies. The member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) outlined not only the importance of education as a means of coping with globalisation but also the importance of education for earning export income. In his speech he warned against taking our current pre-eminent position as an education services exporter for granted.This is one of Labor's major criticisms of this government. They are not just taking our current position for granted; they are actually seeking to weaken it. What is readily apparent is that those nations most successful at coping with and taking advantage of the changes wrought by globalisation are those with a highly educated and highly skilled population and work force. It is not just the nation as a whole that benefits; individual citizens and businesses that benefit. And, when increased investment is made in people through improved education, the country as a whole benefits.Let us have a look at what the coalition parties in their 1996 pre-election policy statements actually said:. . . the Liberal and National Parties recognise that an educated and well trained society is an essential part of ensuring that Australia improves its international competitiveness and, consequently, our ability to guarantee sustainable economic and employment growth.You would think there were no grounds for disagreement. Why is it, then, that since the election of the Howard government two years ago we have seen such considerable cuts particularly taken to higher education? They have taken to education with a logic that seems to completely fly in the face of not only international evidence but also their pre-election promises.There have been cuts to higher education of over $900 million, seeing a reduction of 21,000 student places. HECS has been transformed through increased charges, through differential rates and through lower repayment thresholds into what is now a real barrier to higher education for many from low and middle income families. As the member for Barton indicated, this has seen in particular a decline in enrolments in key disciplines, and of major concern to Australia is the decline in the sciences. This is because of the disproportionate HECS burden placed on science graduates.There has been more than $240 million cut from vocational education and training and another half a billion dollars cut from student assistance. This is not a message about supporting young people in their educational aspirations. This is not a message about saying that, if we want to be part of the world, we will invest in our young people, invest in education. I must say that one wonders whether any of this was in the mind of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) before the last election. There was certainly no mention that this would be the government's policy. I have absolutely no doubt that parents and students alike will be much more wary this time when facing the ballot box.The government seems to see no role for education as a means of transforming and invigorating our society, of helping it to cope with and take advantage of our place in the world. The government seems to have no appreciation of the importance of education as a major generator of export income nor any understanding, I would have to say, of how precarious our current advantage is. At best the government seems to see education as a private good only, of value only to the individual and therefore to be subject to the most severe of user-pays principles. That of course is why we have seen the changes to the HECS scheme and why we see the worst of user pays, which is the introduction of up-front fees.As I said, tonight I want to briefly set out the real impact of these changes on one university, because sometimes what happens in these debates is that we use these big numbers—hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cuts on this and that—and nobody really has much of an idea of what the real impact is on particular places and particular people. In the electorate of Jagajaga is one of Melbourne's finest universities, La Trobe University. While the main campus in Bundoora was established some time ago, La Trobe now does have a network of regional campuses around Victoria in Wodonga, Bendigo, Shepparton, Mildura and Mount Buller.We can all be very proud of the efforts of the staff and the achievements of the students at La Trobe for their fine academic and research record. But I am pleased to say it is also one of the universities that has taken a stand against the Howard government's imposition of full up-front fees, and this has not been an easy thing to do. This university actually understands the community that it is part of. It knows that universities need to offer access to their courses on the basis of merit, not on the basis of how much you can pay to do a particular course, not on the basis of how much Dad or Mum have in the bank.This university is not located in a wealthy area and it does realise that providing excellence in education to this community is a goal to be worthy of, an important goal of being able to offer the students of the northern suburbs of Melbourne who do not come from wealthy families the opportunity to get on in life. As the member for Barton said, the one thing you can be sure of that will take you away from the horror of unemployment is a decent education. It is a thing that this government does not seem to understand. What they want to do is talk about the need to reduce unemployment by attacking the unemployed. A much more productive way of going about things would be to invest in education to give young people the opportunity to improve their lot and not to face the horror of unemployment.Unfortunately, it is the case that La Trobe has been forced, like most universities, to make cuts to programs in order to cope with this government's funding cuts. The National Tertiary Education Union reports that 3,000 jobs have been lost to academia in the last 18 months, 230 of those at La Trobe alone. In fact, the scale of the cuts to funding at La Trobe is effectively around 25 per cent over the years 1997 to 2000 because the university has had to also absorb an unfunded pay increase for academic staff. Cuts of this scale have meant that Italian, chemistry, agriculture and humanities courses have been affected. This is the real impact of these budget cuts. All of these courses have had to be downgraded, cut. The university's music course, which has received wide renown for the quality of its graduates, will be forced to close. Within the humanities, a significant cut has been made to the school of archaeology, one of the landmark research areas at the university with an impressive reputation in archaeological research into the indigenous inhabitants of Australia.The closure of the music school means that the plans of the 200 students who are enrolled in the course have been thrown into doubt. It has been a particularly popular course because it is one of the few in the country where students can actually study contemporary music. Even if those students currently enrolled are able to complete their course, the fact that the course is closing and there will be no new students coming in will of course take away from the vitality of the department. Many have already reported the real impact of the decision to close this course—a completely different change in atmosphere and dedication in the department. As I said, these are the real impacts of these cuts, the real impacts on the students and their aspirations.Another blow has been the forced closure of the School of Environmental and Resource Sciences, yet another devastating impact of the Howard government's cuts. Because of La Trobe's wide regional presence, the effect of the cuts has also translated into areas already hard hit by the loss or downsizing of Commonwealth and state government presence. Staff currently located in Albury-Wodonga are having to relocate to Bendigo because of the forced concentration of the school of education in response to these funding cuts.As I have said already, and I will say it again because it is so important for everybody to understand: the real impacts of this government's cuts to higher education are dashed hopes and reduced opportunities. They are the real impacts of what we are talking about tonight. Even despite this, the La Trobe University does continue to pursue innovative programs. It has recently announced an initiative involving education and Asia. It certainly has many students from Asia studying at the university, but it has also developed a program in partnership with a number of Asian universities in different countries to allow Australian students to take part in the courses in Asia. This, of course, will allow our Australian students to acquire a genuine understanding of their studies from an international perspective.That said, even with that enthusiasm to continue to pursue innovative ideas, there is no escaping the fact that the overall effects of the cuts and the subsequent reduction in the numbers of staff and the numbers of students have been a lowering of morale and a lowering of commitment to education, which is the last thing that anybody would want to see in this country. Neither the staff nor the students can face the future with any degree of security. There is no longer any sense of security about higher education. In that, they have a lot in common with other areas of Australian society because the government is taking these funding cuts into so many aspects of our lives.But it is through these cuts to higher education that we are seeing the tearing away of opportunities from our young people that would, in fact, see them contribute so much to our country in the future. It is an indictment of this government that we have seen such significant cuts that will have such a long lasting and devastating impact. For that reason, I strongly commend the opposition's amendment to the House.21:56:00813Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I would just like to say at the outset with regard to the comments made by the honourable member for Barton (Mr McClelland) that I had occasion to visit the St George campus. Some of my constituents go to that university. What I saw there impressed me immensely. It will be a very grave shame if that campus is closed down and lost forever because it is doing really good things and it should be very proud of its achievements. I wish the honourable member for Barton good luck in ensuring to the best of his ability that the campus remains open, even if it means amalgamating with the campus of the University of Wollongong.Ever since men and women started to read and write, there is one thing that all parents around the world have in common, no matter what nation we come from: apart from good health, we want for our children the very best education that is available. We know that it is the future, and that is what we want for our children. I was fortunate some years ago as a state member of the New South Wales parliament to go on a state visit to China. There is a sister state relationship with the state of New South Wales and the Guangdong province in China. I recall visiting quite a few places where they have strong manufacturing set-ups, and I was very impressed with what I saw there, especially in what is known as their economic development zones.There was one particular factory that I visited and, whilst I am not very computer literate, I saw on a large wall a very large computer—I am advised, the very best technology that is available anywhere in the world. All that was needed to operate that computer—it was there to check the quality of the product that was being made—was one young lady. She sat there with the mainframe feeding information into the computer and watching the computer. I spoke to that young lady and to the manager of that firm and said that I was very impressed with what I saw there, and they said to me, `Yes, this is the very best that is available anywhere in the world. It is made in Germany.' Then they said to me that, within a short period, it is their view that they will be able to compete with the Germans and be able to produce similar equipment for their own market in China.Education is extremely important. I am getting a message from the universities, from the tutors, from some of the vice-chancellors that I speak to and certainly from the students at the universities that there are grave concerns about the cutbacks. I am advised that tutorials are now being dramatically cut back. Whilst we will not see the effects of these cutbacks now or in the next few months, we will certainly see the effects of these cutbacks over a longer period—two, three or four years down the track. I think that is a shame.Australia is renowned for its education system. Australia has one of the best education systems anywhere in the world, and anything that is done that would reduce that tremendous respect that Australia has all around the world for its tertiary institutions would cause a very serious problem.We all know that overseas fee paying students have always provided a valuable source of income for Australian universities. However, in light of the cutbacks to public spending and the downturn in the Asian economies, which will inevitably lead to a drop off in overseas students wanting to come to Australia from the Asia-Pacific region, universities now are under tremendous pressure to find alternative means of raising revenue.The changes introduced by the coalition government have pressured the universities to dramatically increase the revenue raising efforts, which have resulted, I am sad to say, in a two-tiered education system which tends to favour the rich and disadvantage those who cannot pay an up-front fee for degree courses. Beginning this year, Australian universities will for the first time offer full fee paying degree courses to any student who can afford the fee, including local Australian students. In turn, for paying the up-front fee, students will be able to enter university with an entrance ranking five per cent lower than that of other students. I am very concerned at that because there is no doubt the impression will be given—especially overseas—that we are downgrading the very highest levels that are available at Australian universities. Of all the changes made, I think this is probably the one thing that has caused the greatest angst amongst Australian students because they can see well into the future and I see this causing us tremendous problems further down the track. The other problem is this growing feeling in the community that those who can afford to pay for it will be able to provide for their children an opportunity that those who cannot will not be able to do. That is not the Australian way. That is not the way I believe Australia should be going. Those who are colloquially known as the Aussie battlers should be given every possible opportunity and should be able to compete with everybody else on the same level and at the same opportunity. This is not happening.Time is running on and I know there are a lot of bills before the parliament. I would just like to say in conclusion that, whilst I agree with the sentiments in the amendment proposed by the opposition, I will not be supporting the amendment on this occasion. We are only a few weeks away from the budget, which will come down in May, and I would like to reserve my judgment on the situation until I see what is in the budget.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Don't hold your breath.ZK6Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMIT—I do not know about holding my breath; it is not that long for me to wait. I will leave my comments at that. I want to reiterate that, whilst I agree with the sentiments in the amendment, I will not be supporting it. I will reserve my judgment on the education policies of the government until I see what is in the budget.22:04:00815Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—As I will be the last speaker in this debate on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 , I shall make some broad comments on the debate as well as address the issues which were raised by the second reading amendment from the opposition. The government's principal objectives in relation to higher education are to expand the opportunity for young Australians and older Australians to take part in higher education and to improve the quality of the teaching and research in Australia's universities.Australia's universities have a critical role in ensuring that this country is able to be dynamic, strong and competitive into the 21st century. The research effort of Australian universities is critical in ensuring that science, technology and industry in Australia are able to take advantage of the most recent advances in knowledge, that our scientists are at the cutting edge of world science and that the Australian nation can benefit from that fact. The government is also concerned to promote the quality of teaching in Australian universities because, from the point of view of most young Australians, it is the teaching function which impinges most directly on their future opportunities.The government's policies have been designed to open the doors to increasing levels of resourcing for Australian universities. To do that, we have altered the mix to a degree between public and private funding. The government has taken a number of decisions in this era of fiscal constraint, when we have had to fill the $10 billion black hole left by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) when he was Minister for Finance. We have opened the door to the universities gaining additional resources from other avenues.As a consequence of this, Australian universities are today better resourced than ever before. Total university revenues have risen by some $400 million in the last two years, and the projections of the universities themselves and the government indicate that university revenues will increase substantially over the next few years as well.The total number of enrolments in Australian universities this year is likely to be significantly higher than last year. The government has given very high priority to ensuring that school leavers and young people can continue in increasing numbers to gain access to Australian universities. Some 10,000 more places will be funded by the Commonwealth government in universities this year than in the last year of the Labor government. So opportunities to occupy government funded places are expanding quite significantly in Australian universities at the present time.In addition to that, the government has changed the funding for places in Australian universities and has agreed to pay to the universities the minimum differential HECS of about $2,500 in respect of overenrolments. This will encourage universities to take extra students where their marginal costs are low.The government has also allowed universities to admit for the first time full fee paying students to undergraduate places. This has been an important advance in equity and social justice in relation to admission to universities. It has put Australian students in the position of overseas students for the first time. The Labor Party, as we know, have consistently sought to deny access to Australian students on the same basis as overseas students for purely ideological reasons. Their ideology of class warfare has once again misled them here. In fact, these fee paying places have opened the doors of opportunity to hundreds of Australian students who would not have otherwise been able to gain their first preference places. Many of these students, as we know, have vacated government funded places to take up their first preference. This has meant that many Australian students who would not otherwise have gained entry to universities at all are now able to occupy government funded places which would have been closed to them.This government has acted decisively to address the problem of unmet demand, which was one of the most unfortunate legacies of the Labor period in office. As we recall, the Labor Party, through its ideological policies, shut the doors of Australian universities to tens of thousands of qualified students. This government has moved to put in place policies to open these doors to Australian students and, as I have said before, this year we will very likely have the largest number of students enrolled in undergraduate places in universities for a very long time. We will certainly be seeing many more government funded places in universities this year than ever existed under the Labor Party.This gives the lie to the first proposition in the second reading amendment moved by the Labor Party that places in universities have been reduced by 21,000. This is truly Orwellian stuff: places in universities are up, but the Labor Party says places in universities are down. Nothing shows more clearly the fantasy land in which these idealogues on the other side of the House are living.Their sole justification for this figure is that it relates to the forward estimates, which they were never going to be able to deliver. They were never going to be able to deliver these figures because the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister for Finance, allowed the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, to walk right over him in the course of every budget process. Spending got out of control and the country plunged into deficit—$23 billion of deficit in the last two years of the Labor government. There is no question whatever that, just like the fantasy unemployment targets that the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) is so fond of, these fantasy targets for places in Australian universities had any chance of ever becoming reality.As to the second proposition of the second reading amendment concerning the up-front fees policy, we now have some 800 Australian students who have been admitted this year to the courses that they wanted—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You're still looking for them under the bed.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—They have shown their willingness to invest in their own education.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—What marks did they get?BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—And they have vacated places in Australian universities that can now be occupied by students who depend on government funded places. It is very disappointing that the student unions unleashed by the Labor Party have intimidated a number of the universities from offering up-front fees places. Therefore, many Australian students who would otherwise have gained those places have been denied them by the Labor Party's minions on the university campuses. These are the student unionists who still seek in a number of states to use the compulsorily acquired fees of students to support their own activities but deny other Australian students the right to access places in Australian universities.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable members at the table will kindly desist from interjecting.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is very hard to suppress the noise from the other side of the chamber, but I know you are doing your best. The third proposition in this second reading amendment relates to the HECS fees imposed by the government. Again, this is a change which is a significant advance in equity because it means that students in the more high cost courses with the higher prospect of substantial incomes when they graduate are now paying a higher proportion of their course costs. The Labor Party thought it was entirely equitable to have students in lower cost courses like arts courses paying a much higher proportion of their costs than it was to have medical students paying a reasonable proportion of their costs. The government has righted that wrong and, consequently, it has put in place a much fairer HECS regime than ever existed under the previous government.The Labor Party persists with the fantasy that this has, in some way, affected science enrolments. There is no evidence whatever that this is the case. In fact, science applications rose this year some six per cent in Queensland. They are essentially stable in several of the other states. There is no Australia-wide pattern in science applications. Therefore, there is no basis whatever for saying that the HECS charges have affected the pattern of science enrolments. For many years, the Labor government allowed the decline in science in schools to continue. Because their education policies are essentially handed to them by the Australian Education Union, they were unable to do anything about science or maths in schools, or indeed about literacy—the Australian Education Union would not allow them to do so.This government is now acting very strongly to put in place literacy and numeracy standards at a national level for the very first time in Australian history. That is because we are not beholden to the Australian Education Union but take our decisions in the public interest and what is in the interests of young Australians. The opposition's second reading amendment, therefore, is completely without foundation or credibility. It flies in the face of the facts. It shows that the Labor Party has absolutely no grasp of the fundamental issues in this area.The government is particularly concerned, as I said at the start of my remarks, to expand opportunities in education. That is why we have increased the number of government funded places. That is why we are increasing the opportunities for universities to fund additional places at minimum differential HECS. That is why we have allowed Australian undergraduates to invest in their university education by paying fees if they wish to gain their first preference course. It is also the reason why we have supported an increasing number of places in TAFE. There were some 53,000 additional places in TAFE last year, of which 43,000 were funded by the Commonwealth government, and there will be additional places in TAFE this year. It is also the reason why we have put in place the new national apprenticeship system.You would think that someone like the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) on the other side of the table would have some concern for the 70 per cent of school leavers who do not go on to university. Instead, we have heard the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) say that he is deeply concerned that this government is placing too much weight on vocational education. He rarely speaks in this House, as we know, about anything other than universities. He shows no concern for the students who are not going on to university, but this government does. That is because this government is greatly concerned with equity and fairness in education. Consequently, we are now seeing a very substantial increase in apprenticeships and traineeships and the numbers are rising very rapidly.Last year we had a record number of apprentices and trainees. New apprenticeships were up by 11 per cent in 1997 over 1996. We have just had a 24 per cent increase in trade apprenticeships in the first part of this year over the previous year. So apprenticeships are now recovering from the devastating situation into which they were forced by the failure of the Labor Party to take account of the needs of all young people who need those kinds of opportunities.This government is completely unequivocal in its determination to expand the resources of Australian universities, even in a time of fiscal constraints. Operating grants paid for by the Commonwealth government for Australian universities are up this year over last year.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—That's a big measure!BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—They are up by some $4 million this year. If we look at total resourcing from the Commonwealth budget for higher education this year, we find that total resourcing, including research grants, is up some $40 million over last year—1998 over 1997.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Don't mention 1996.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Over the last two years, the total revenue of Australian universities is up by some $400 million.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—That's a different measure.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—But it is the important measure. That is where the Labor Party has fallen down year after year, because it has failed to open the doors to proper resourcing for Australian universities. This government is determined to place Australian universities at the level of the world's best. That is not going to happen overnight after the run-down which has occurred over the last 13 years. Funding per student has also risen. We now have the highest funding level, at $11,400 per student, that we have had since 1990. This is significantly higher than funding per student in the last year of the Labor Party in 1996.I believe the government's credibility in relation to education and training is unquestioned by anybody who looks at the matter reasonably and is prepared to look at the facts without the blinkers of ideology which the Labor Party imposes in this area. Nothing demonstrates this more than the Higher Education Legislation Amendment Bill 1997 . I have pleasure in asking the House to support this bill and to reject the second reading amendment of the Labor Party. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Martyn Evans's amendment) stand part of the question. 22:24:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)81Abbott, 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. 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.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McLachlan, I. M.Miles, C. G. Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. 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. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.48Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. 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. Lawrence, C. M.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. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. *Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Randall, D. J. Latham, M. W.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.819Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Dr Kemp) read a third time.Adjournment81910000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.81922:32:00819Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I would like to take the opportunity tonight to raise a concern of mine. As many in this House would know, unfortunately my father passed away last year. I would like to speak about the disgraceful letter that my mother received just five days after my father had passed away after 52 years of marriage. The letter my mother received was from Rookwood Gardens, and it was headed with the name of the funeral director. The letter stated:The New South Wales Public Health Regulations requires us to record the placement of the cremated remains. We therefore respectfully ask you to contact us as soon as convenient. The arrangements necessary to proceed with your wishes can be at our Memorial Office any time by prior appointment between the hours of 8.00 am—5.00 pm seven days a week.In the next few days, if you have not made prior contact with us—remember that this is five days after my father's death—we will telephone you to assist you with arranging a day and time that is convenient to you.We respectfully ask that the one authorising the arrangements be the above addressee.I was so enraged by this letter that I contacted the Department of Fair Trading through the state member Mr Bruce MacCarthy, who assisted me with this matter. I also contacted the Hon. Faye Lo Po. I was very disappointed in the letter that I received from the Department of Fair Trading, signed by the director-general, in response to my concern. The letter said that Rookwood Gardens had been contacted and had given an assurance that the letter that was sent to my mother was not intended as a restricted marketing ploy but was meant as a letter of sympathy and condolence and to let me know that my father's ashes were ready to collect.I raise this issue tonight not for my family's sake but for the sake of many elderly Australians who would have received a similar letter to this. When my mother received this letter she rang me in a distressed state, thinking that she had to deal with this issue straightaway and that she had to deal with Rookwood Gardens. My mother was lucky in that she had her family—me and my brother—around her to consult with her and let her know that she did not have to comply with the wishes of this letter from Rookwood Gardens.But there are many elderly Australians out there who suffer bereavement, sometimes after many years of marriage, who do not have people around them to assist them and who are led to believe, by letters worded like this, that they must contact Rookwood Gardens, that they must deal through Rookwood Gardens to place the ashes of their loved ones with Rookwood Gardens and that they alone are those who should contact Rookwood Gardens to make the arrangements. The letter also says:In providing a service to those who have just experienced the loss of a loved one, it is evident that most people choose to memorialise their loved ones in some form, at this time, from the many options available.Of course, only from Rookwood Gardens. It continues:This becomes a way of recognising a precious life lived, which family and friends find offers them great comfort now and into the future.As you can see, Mr Speaker, this really is just a marketing ploy. I am very disappointed that the letter from the Department of Fair Trading basically accepts the explanation of Rookwood Gardens and takes no further action on it.I have chosen to raise the issue in parliament tonight in the hope that this may gain some more publicity and in the hope that Rookwood Gardens and other funeral directors or crematoriums throughout Australia listen to my concerns on behalf of the many thousands of elderly residents who have received letters similar to this and have been distressed by them. Hopefully, some action will be taken to correct what I believe is a very disturbing form of marketing that is happening throughout Australia at this stage.82022:37:00820Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I rise to pay tribute to Roger Shipton who died on 19 January, aged 61. He was known to many members. He was the member for Higgins in this parliament from 1975 to 1990. He won six elections, three of them as a member of a government. Our parliamentary careers did not cross. He resigned from the parliament in the year that I came into it, but our paths crossed in different ways over some 15 years.I got to know Roger when I was President of the ACTU, and I got to know him well subsequent to his resignation. I counted him as a good friend—and not just Roger but his whole family. Roger was a man of compassion. He was also a caring man. In many senses he had the common touch. The criticism was levelled at him from time to time that he was too nice to be in politics, but he was the sort of person who many looked to, wishing that their member of parliament was like him.Roger was a team player, but he also understood the importance of bridging both sides of parliament. Whilst he was a member, and subsequently, he spent a lot of time trying to bring both sides together in the belief that a common goal could be forged around a lot of issues. He was also a very effective local member. I think the tragedy of the challenges to him—the first in 1987 and the subsequent and successful one in 1990, which saw Roger depart this place—was that the allegation was made that a seat as safe as Higgins should be vacated for someone who could go on to bigger and better things—it was a high-fliers seat.The qualities that I have just outlined were debased in his case, and not much recognition was given to that dimension. That is a pity. In the end, for all his good qualities, Roger was embroiled in a departure that was associated with a purge. Nevertheless, I believe it is very important for qualities like his to be brought into this parliament.Whilst in the parliament, Roger took an active interest in foreign affairs, Aboriginal education, special education, and the protection of children. He was shadow minister for tourism and small business and he also took—and continued to take—a keen interest in amateur athletics. Subsequent to departing this parliament, he built a very successful business career.Roger was also a very devoted husband to Suzi, and a devoted father to James and Kate, and to his son-in-law, Richard. It was a privilege to be at the service in January to honour the memory of Roger Shipton. Both sides of politics were represented, as was the community and many of his friends; the church was filled to overflowing. Those who were part of the service know that the contributions made by both James and Kate were superb. They demonstrated defiance, pride and love for the father they had lost. James's eulogy was inspirational.I convey my condolences to Suzi, whom I had the pleasure of meeting again over the weekend, and likewise to Kate and James. Roger Shipton made an enormous contribution, not only to this parliament but to this nation, and I hope that the qualities that he stood for are emulated by some of us in this place, at least from time to time. It was a privilege to know him. He served the nation with distinction and he was a noble servant of the parliament.82122:42:00821West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the issue of the successful implementation of work for the dole projects in my electorate of Bowman. Two organisations are currently running work for the dole projects in the bayside area: the Moreton Bay Marine Association and Wynnum Enterprises. Both groups are engaged in environmental rehabilitation at local sites, and one group is actively engaged in restoration of historical sites at Fort Lytton and St Helena Island. The groups are also assisting local community groups to clear areas and complete tasks which they cannot do.Today, I received a status update on the Moreton Bay Marine Association activity. This group manages five work for the dole projects throughout electorates around Brisbane, engaging a total of 120 persons. They have 108 volunteers and 12 conscripted participants. After the commencement of the projects in early January, it is indicative of the success of the program that, already, more than one in five participants have achieved permanent employment.If we extrapolated this success rate to our latest national unemployment rate of 8.2 per cent, representing some 759,000 people, the present level would fall to around 6.56 per cent, or almost 152,000 people in placement situations. I am not suggesting that this would automatically happen if all unemployed people become involved in the work for the dole program; I am just demonstrating the practical success of this initiative and its potential benefit to our community.I have met the participants of one of the groups and I am impressed with their commitment to getting the tasks done. Their coordinators, David Gasteen and Paul Ryan, are keenly aware of the specific needs of the participants and, in their own area of expertise of environment management, are admirably suited to the task of guiding the participants in their efforts. One of the early outcomes of these efforts was that some of the participants moved into employment. It is interesting to note that 100 per cent of those who achieved employment were volunteer participants in the program.The employment records of the people involved show that they have acquired a range of talent and work experience. In many cases they have been overlooked for permanent employment placement. Their best asset is their keenness to seek out and have a go at contributing to the success of the various activities organised. At this point in time, all participants on the two projects in my electorate are volunteers and, because of the recent success in obtaining employment by the volunteer participants, I am very hopeful of the trend continuing in the Bowman projects.Comments made by the participants indicate their personal experience and highlight the effect these projects are having on them. Julie, a graduate marine biologist, said that the program:Has taught me a set of skills outside of my normal work scope. I now have a better resume and think this has helped my confidence and self-esteem.Jenny said:I have been given a supervisors job. Therefore, I have people skills now that I did not have previously. I am in the process of applying for work on a full time basis and I do so with confidence which I didn't have before. I was a bit lazy but now I look forward to coming in to work. This has been good for me.Paul said:It has taught me some skills in horticulture which I never had. I work in the field and find that I enjoy the life out there planting trees and doing something for the environment. I suppose I am a bit of a greenie now.Shane said:This has given me a way which lets me get my art on show. I enjoy the days off but I also like the responsibility of coming to work. I am keen on my aboriginal art and this has helped me to get more done instead of being lazy. I am not real good with the words. The work for the dole has been good for me.By their endorsement of these programs these young people have put paid to the recent scathing comments by Mr Peter Walsh, the Director of the Queensland Council of Social Service, that these schemes were mickey mouse schemes that did not work and were put in place only to placate the extreme elements of the Liberal Party.What we have here is an extremely out of touch comment that shows a lack of understanding from the extreme Left. This attitude perpetrated by a community welfare advocate is part of a mischievous misinformation campaign being currently run with the support of the ACTU to scare and alarm my constituents into believing that my government is doing nothing to assist the disadvantaged and unemployed in my electorate. What a load of rubbish! Work for the dole does work and it provides a means to an end for some of our many unemployed as well as providing valuable assistance for significant community based projects.82222:47:00822Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRISHI4ShortlandALP00—Mr Speaker, firstly I congratulate you on attaining the office of Speaker. You and I have travelled a long road together from our first meeting in your role as Minister for Shipping and Transport in the Newcastle council chambers back in the late 1960s until this evening. I wish you well. I have shared with you many occasions as we have changed positions on different sides of the chamber in the old house and in this house. I sincerely wish you well and I hope you enjoy it. It is the second toughest job in this chamber.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Thank you.HI4Morris, Peter, MPMr PETER MORRIS—I would also like to very briefly add to the remarks of the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) in respect of the former member for Higgins, Roger Shipton. Roger was one of those persons on the other side with whom we had bridged relationships. I convey to his family my condolences on his passing. To me it was a great surprise.Last Friday morning we held a rally at Belmont in support of the retention of the Belmont Medicare office in my electorate. The rally was well attended. What was clear from many people who attended and observed the rally was the very strong opposition to this government's dismantling of Medicare. People at the rally were most vocal in their support of the Belmont Medicare office in particular and Medicare in general. People do not believe the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to support Medicare. Australians are becoming aware that, whilst proclaiming support for Medicare, the government is busily, brutally and irresponsibly closing down 43 Medicare offices across Australia. That assault on Medicare means that hundreds of thousands of retirees, young families and sick people will not be able to get immediate cash refunds after they have paid their doctor's bill.The government's war with the medical profession is causing fewer and fewer doctors to bulk-bill. In my electorate thousands of my constituents need immediate cash refunds of their payment for doctors to enable them to purchase their prescribed pharmaceuticals and in some cases their groceries and their foodstuffs for the evening and the next day. As a result of this government's actions, increasing numbers of my constituents, retirees and young families, have to pay their doctor's bill at the time of consultation or often before the consultation takes place.Take the case of a young family with below average weekly earnings. The doctor's bill can be anywhere between $30 and $50, which they have to outlay in cash. Then again as a result of this government's actions their pharmaceuticals are $20 per script. So if they have two scripts and a visit to the doctor, they could be outlaying anywhere from $70 to over $100. Many families just do not have a spare $100 to outlay in that fashion.So the closure of Medicare offices is harsh, deliberate and hurtful to those families. We need to understand this is the deliberate policy of this government. People understand that. It is absolutely clear that the government is determined to dismantle Medicare. That is evidenced by the Prime Minister's statement on the Sunday program of 1 March. When asked by Laurie Oakes, `So you guarantee that, if you win the election, for the next three years Medicare will remain unchanged?' the Prime Minister responded, `Well, the essentials of Medicare will remain unchanged, of course they will, of course they will.'We know that is code for the end of Medicare because this is the same man who as Treasurer promised to maintain Medibank and then spent seven years dismantling Medibank. People know that and they do not trust him. This is the same former Treasurer who gave us the $27 billion deficit, the highest cash interest rates in history, double digit inflation, the highest rate of inflation since World War II with the exception of the Korean War, and double digit unemployment. And with Prime Minister Fraser he presided over the dismantling of the original Medibank after having promised to maintain it.My constituents do not believe his words. They know his code language. They do not trust this government and they want the Belmont Medicare office retained. I spoke to the minister again last week, I have mentioned it to him this evening and I am speaking here. Again I appeal to the minister on behalf of my thousands of constituents who need that immediate cash payment service. Bear this in mind: you dismantle Medicare at your peril. The people do not trust you. They are suspicious of this government. They know this Prime Minister's role as Treasurer.We want the Medicare office at Belmont retained for the benefit of those young families, those retirees and those people who cannot afford to outlay $90 to $110 to pay the doctor and to pay for their pharmaceuticals and then wait to get their money back. So this attack by the government is properly recognised by the people in my electorate. They understand. They do not trust this government. You interfere with Medicare, as you are doing, at your peril. (Time expired)82322:52:00823Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—Mr Speaker, may I congratulate you on your position as Speaker. You bring style and strength to that role.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Thank you.10000Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I would like tonight to pay tribute to the Reverend Arthur Menkens, who died in a road accident near Brandon in February of this year. Reverend Menkens was born in Ayr in April 1918, the eighth of nine children. Reverend Menkens's life spanned farming, the priesthood and a rich community service to the people of Dawson.His family moved to a sugar farm at Home Hill when he was seven. They worked to build it up, successfully fending off foreclosure during the Depression. `We lived off our own grown foods and learned the lesson waste not, want not,' he said. He attended Osborne School and Ayr High School before starting work as a laboratory assistant at Kalamia mill near Ayr in 1933. Over the next four years, Arthur attended the Central Technical College in Brisbane, now QUT, and gained a diploma in sugar chemistry. During the slack seasons, he worked as a cane tester at the former Cattle Creek mill at Finch Hatton and Maryborough mill. In 1937 he returned to the Burdekin as shift chemist at Kalamia. In 1939 he worked in New Zealand as a builder's labourer, wharfie and dairy hand.The Depression and wars had a big impact on the lives of Arthur's generation, and he found himself back home helping his parents keep the farm going. He married Gwynneth Mann, a farmer's daughter, from Home Hill in 1942. They had the following children: Ray, and daughters Marilyn (Stokes), Jennifer (Crocker), Kathryn (Lyons) and Bronwyn Menkens, who were born on the dairy farm and added to the output of the farm with their energetic assistance.In 1950 Arthur and Gwynn won the Royal National Show's dairy competition for the zone extending from Rockhampton to Townsville. Arthur's involvement in the community ranged across school, church, Masonic, farming and political interests. He also spent a great deal of time and research seeking life's basic truths. He remained for many years rather sceptical of the relevance of the conventional churches. But the Masonic concept of the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God gave him a new and positive direction in his search. He told me how he had had a vision of Christ, and it was this that encouraged him to study at St Francis Anglican Theological College in 1968.At the age of 50 years, his career changed from being a farmer to having a radically new life as an Anglican minister. This brought him tremendous challenges with personal and spiritual demands, which channelled his fighting spirit. His wife Gwynn was always his anchor and support. They worked in parishes in Townsville, Gordonvale, Proserpine and Home Hill, followed by locums in both north and south Queensland. In 1989 they spent two months at Holy Trinity Parish in Mackay. They retired in 1983, and Arthur and Gwynn continued their very active work in the church and their interest in political and community affairs.It is not often that late in life one is able to be an author. Only last year Arthur realised his long cherished dream of publishing his own book on theology entitled God's Deal. It dealt with the eternal question of why in a God loving earth there is still disease, famine and despair. I do not know whether Arthur had the right answer, but he certainly has challenged all of us in his book.Arthur and Gwynn spent eight happy years back on their farm in Home Hill, living next door to their son and daughter-in-law. This allowed them to live next door to three of their growing grandchildren: Penny, Emily and Anna. It is significant that on the weekend that Arthur was killed he was doing something he greatly enjoyed—travelling to Townsville to share in the investiture of new priests for the Anglican Church there. As it was said at Arthur's funeral, while his earthly life had closed, his spiritual journey with Christ was continuing. I offer my condolences to his wife Gwynn and his children.82422:56:00824O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Recently, along with thousands of other Geelong residents, I attended Geelong's annual Pako Festa—one of Australia's premier multicultural events. The festival com menced with the opening of the Chinese costume exhibition at the Geelong West town hall on 21 February, with one of the main highlights of the week's activities held on Saturday the 28th, when 31 ethnic groups in Geelong participated in the annual Pako Festa carnival parade.The Pako Festa is a unique multicultural festival, and I pay tribute to all those people from Geelong's ethnic community who worked tirelessly to stage this extremely important event. In particular, I pay tribute to Mr George Ballas, chairman of the organising committee, and all other members of the organising committee who gave freely of their time to organise such a spectacular multicultural event. Mr Jordan Mavros, of the Migrant Resource Centre, also served on that committee. Councillor Margaret Lewis, wearing two hats, representing the City of Greater Geelong and the Geelong West Traders Association, has been a strong supporter down through the years for the Festa.I also pay tribute to Ms Anna Vrantsis, the artistic and marketing director of the festival, on whose shoulders fell the onerous task of securing sponsorships and developing and coordinating the festival's artistic program; Mr Frank O'Neil, the administrator; and the staff of Geelong's Migrant Resource Centre who supported the organising committee on the day to ensure the smooth running of the festival. The Geelong community owes a great debt to the visionaries of the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council, the Geelong West Traders Association and the old Geelong West Council, which initiated the Pako Festa in 1983.Geelong is an ethnically diverse community. The Pako Festa has been an important vehicle down through the years for both large and small ethnic communities in Geelong to showcase their cultures. It has been a powerful force for bringing all citizens of Geelong together in a spirit of true community at a time when international events and civic strife overseas have had the potential to seriously divide Geelong's ethnic communities. The Festa now represents a major source of fundraising for many ethnic groups, enabling their associations to continue to assist their mem bers. It is indeed a powerful vehicle for the promotion and sustenance of diverse cultures in our local community.The Pako Festa has had an interesting history. It commenced in 1983 as a one-day festival and has grown to where today the festival runs for a week and involves a range of cultural activities which include exhibitions, concerts, street theatre, a song fest, food fairs and, of course, the now famous Pako Festa parade.This year some 31 ethnic groups and an estimated 2,300 participants contributed to the Pako Festa's success. Of particular significance was the active involvement of Geelong's Wathaurong Aboriginal Community and Education Centre in the Festa for the first time. The Geelong community was both excited and honoured by their participation.I congratulate the City of Greater Geelong for its financial involvement in the Pako Festa and encourage the city to remain active in its financial and logistical support for the event. To other sponsors such as Rohm and Haas, Sunicrust Bakeries, Arts Victoria, the Transport Accident Commission, Vic-Health, Barwon Water, Festivals Australia and the Geelong West Traders Association, thanks for your support.It is very important that the Pako Festa continue and be developed further as an important Festa in Geelong. The Geelong Migrant Resource Centre, through its multicultural arts officer, has played a pivotal role in organising the Festa. It is therefore regrettable that the multicultural arts officer position, which up until recently received full funding, has been reduced by half. I would ask the Australia Council to restore funding for this position to secure the continuance of the festival.23:00:00825House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices825The following notices were given:Mr Andrew to move:That the following Bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Intellectual Property Laws Amendment Bill 1997;Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997;Health Legislation Amendment Bill 1997;Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 1997;Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1997; andTaxation Laws (Technical Amendments) Bill 1997.Mr Filing to move:That this House:(1) notes the growing public concern at the intention of the Australian Government to sign the OECD's Multilateral Agreement on Investment;(2) calls on the Government to debate the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in the federal Parliament before any decision is taken to sign the agreement; and(3) further calls on the Government to refer the agreement to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and to conclude public hearings before any decision is taken to sign the agreement.Documents825The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 9 March 1998:Acts Interpretation Act—Statements relating to delay in furnishing report within specified period—Northern Territory Fisheries Joint Authority—Reports for period 1 January to 30 June 1995 and 1995-96.Fisheries Management Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 24.Migration Act—Statements under section—48B (4).417 (20).