1998-03-103816REPS82701998-03-10Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice827827827Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is the government aware of the impending closure of the successful business of a small business woman in the electorate of Hughes because her incorporated company with 12 staff and two offices will be replaced by a man with no office, no staff and no computer? How can the Prime Minister explain to Ms Leonie Green that her 10-year-old successful company, Careers Advancement College, with above national standards for job placement of the unemployed should shut down at the end of April and be replaced by Mr Khadar Roude's company? Is the government comfortable with changing public policy to close down successful small businesses?827Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I am aware of the letter from Ms Leonie Green that the member for Batman refers to. This letter is from a person who did not get a tender within the recent tender round. She was one of 700 tenderers out of 1,000 who were not awarded contracts. I have read that letter, and it is wrong on every factual count within it. Of course you would expect the member for Batman who day after day is apparently going to get up in this House and canvass the most inaccurate information put to him by people—many of whom one could have a great deal of sympathy for—who are disappointed because they were not as competitive as others in their ability to provide services to unemployed people in this country.I am prepared day after day to get up here and answer questions about these particular cases of people who did not get contracts. If that is all the Labor Party has to say about the employment services market, it is no wonder that unemployed people in this country have lost faith in the Labor Party. What we are doing is putting in place through this reform one of the most important social reforms that Australia has seen for decades. It will provide unemployed people with the dignity they were denied by Labor's system.The system that you kept in place that forced them to go to one government monopoly provider was never a system paid on results, and only 20 per cent of the vacancies had a limited number of points of access around the country. If that is the best you can do, you will have no credibility whatever in this country. This country will be flying the flag of equity and social justice on behalf of Australia's unemployed people.827827Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the best practical measures the government can take to insulate our economy from the effects of the external economic situation in Asia to maintain the strong growth and economic fundamentals of our economy?827Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his question. This government has been at the forefront of measures in the international community to respond to the emerging situation in Asia. Our government is one of only two in the world that has agreed to be part of international financial rescue efforts. Later on this week, the government will be introducing legislation to make good on Australia's commitment to international financial packages in respect of Korea and Indonesia.There is obvious concern in the Australian business community over expectations in relation to Asia. Even today we had the release of the ACCI-Westpac survey, which showed that in respect of export deliveries certainly expectations were down for the March quarter and the June quarter, obviously as a result of what is happening up in Asia. It is a very serious situation.Mr Crean interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—I do not think even in his most humbuggist mood the member for Hotham would claim that the government is responsible for the situation in Asia.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Give them time.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That is tomorrow's allegation, is it? Can I make it clear what is important in relation to Australia as we confront this external challenge—a challenge which Australia has not had to confront in the last couple of decades. All the time during the last couple of decades, regardless of what was happening in the Australian economy, Asia was an impetus to growth. Even when Labor had the Australian economy in recession in 1990, 1991 and 1992, Asia was still a stimulus.This is the first time in the last two decades that Asia will not be a stimulus to the Australian economy. What that means is that we have to work as hard as ever to secure the Australian economic situation. The first thing we have to do is deliver on our historic commitment to take the Australian budget out of the red and put it back into the black. This is a very important part of an economic strategy to face the emerging crisis. That means that all of the unfunded promises that are now being made in the name of the Australian Labor Party are utterly irresponsible in the face of an external challenge of the dimension that we are facing. Every day the Leader of the Opposition walks into parliament, he makes another unfunded promise. It is almost as if there is a bit of magic when he goes through those doors. He talked this morning as he came in about $1.7 billion in relation to health: `Whipping $1.7 billion out is basically taking it out of the states one way or another, so they certainly need that put back with an appropriate set of terms.' That is what he said this morning.He made a $1.7 billion unfunded promise just this morning, which you can put together with all of his other unfunded promises in relation to foreign aid, in relation to nursing homes, in relation to R&D syndicates and in relation to all of the tax dodgers. All of these are unfunded promises which would be utterly irresponsible in the face of the current situation.What else does Australia need to do in the face of the current situation? Let me make this point. For an island nation whose exports go out through ports and wharfs nothing could be more damaging to the Australian economy than a sclerotic waterfront that has restrictive work practices and that operates in an unproductive way. What do we see? The Australian Labor Party would choke the lifeblood of the Australian economy because it will not support reform on Australia's waterfront. Nothing could be more irresponsible than for the Labor Party to give comfort to those who want to make Australia uncompetitive. The Labor Party should join this government to support waterfront reform.What else do we need to do in the face of the external challenge? In the face of the external challenge nothing could be more important to Australia than tax reform. Why would we sit back complacently like the Australian Labor Party and say that we will imbed indirect taxes into our exports at a time when our exports are struggling on world markets? What could be more complacent than that? Yet the Australian Labor Party say there is no need to reform our taxation system. They say there is no need to take the fundamental restructuring which is required in Australia to get the Australian economy going again.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order and it goes to the length to which the Treasurer is taking to answer this question, particularly given your admonition to this place when you took the chair that you wanted ministers' answers to be shorter. This is a minister that does not know how to be shorter. I ask you to draw him to a conclusion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have taken your point of order. I suggest the Treasurer does draw his answer to a close. It has been fairly lengthy.CT4Mr COSTELLO—At a time when we face an external challenge of dimensions which Australia has not faced before, it is more important than ever that Australia improve and work on fundamental economic reform, that we work on surplus budgets, that we work on an improved waterfront, that we heighten the labour market reforms and that we take the important challenge of tax reform and we take it by the horns and we accomplish it for the sake of Australia at a time when it is more needed than ever.829829Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I would like to address my question without notice to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, have you had the opportunity to read the letter sent to you by the Sister of Mercy nun Sister Mary-Louise, who lives in the member for Lindsay's electorate? Is the Prime Minister aware that Sister Mary-Louise is furious that the people of St Marys, an area of disadvantage, have been given less choice and fewer places in unemployment programs, resulting in 10 efficient and dedicated staff being dismissed and the whole Skillshare project put in jeopardy? How will you now, Prime Minister, respond to Sister Mary-Louise's charge that the government has sold the unemployed to the lowest bidder rather than using quality and effectiveness of service as criteria?829Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister is quite able to defer to any minister the responsibility of responding to a question.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—On a point of order, Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The Prime Minister is quite within his responsibility in asking the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs to answer.BT4Dr KEMP—I thank the member for Prospect for her question. I have read the letter from Sister Mary-Louise. I have also had Sister Mary-Louise's views conveyed to me by the member for Lindsay. Sister Mary-Louise has provided good services to unemployed people in the electorate of Lindsay for a long time. I am naturally sympathetic to Sister Mary-Louise because in the end the bid that she did submit was not competitive compared with those that were accepted for that area.In the letter there were a number of factual inaccuracies. I am happy to put the facts on the record for Sister Mary-Louise in relation to the increasing assistance which unemployed people will be getting in St Marys. First of all, unemployed people will have access to the services of Mission Australia in St Marys, which will be able to assist hundreds of long-term unemployed people to get jobs in a way which will be tailored to their individual needs.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—And wasn't this?BT4Dr KEMP—Our responsibility in the end is to the unemployed people of this country. Our responsibility is to help in the best possible way that we can those people who are most disadvantaged. It is no criticism of someone who has been offering services for a long time to say that the government has received a better plan to help unemployed people in that area. In addition to that the government has contracted other providers within the general St Marys area who will be assisting over 2,000 unemployed people. Anyone who is unemployed in St Marys will be able to go to those other providers as well. So they will have for the first time a choice of a number of agencies to provide them with help in filling job vacancies.Let me return to the point that I made before. If all we are going to hear from the Labor Party are the views of those who have not got contracts in this tender round—a very high quality tender round with lots of excellent proposals—all it will do is underline to the people of Australia that the Labor Party has no constructive plan whatever to help unemployed people. The only people in this country who are putting forward a creative, innovative, soundly based plan to help the unemployed people in this country are the coalition.You are a policy vacuum. When you were the Leader of the House, you added 95,000 to the ranks of the long-term unemployed. You failed as the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. You are failing as the Leader of the Opposition. It is up to the coalition to put forward these constructive people to help people in this country.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—I seek leave to table this letter personally addressed to the Prime Minister so that Sister Mary-Louise may have the benefit of a reply from him and not from the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume her seat.Leave not granted.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—The Sisters of Mercy will know all about this.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Would the honourable member for Prospect please remain silent.830830Marek, Paul, MPMr MAREKLK6CapricorniaNP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister please inform the House on the progress of the Federation Fund which will go a long way to build major projects of significance across this country?830Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As honourable members will be aware, in the 1997 budget the government announced the allocation of $1,000 million into a fund designed to mark the centenary of the federation of the Australian nation. The bulk of that money was to be committed towards major projects of lasting national significance and benefit. Many of these projects will generate large numbers of jobs in the construction phase and they will make a very valuable and ongoing contribution to Australia, to Australia's infrastructure and to the Australian economy.Already the following Federation Fund projects have been announced: the National Museum of Australia, which includes the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies to be constructed in Canberra at a cost of $147 million; the Darwin to Alice Springs railway, which has attracted a commitment of $100 million—and I remind the House that that was promised by Bob Hawke in 1983 and for 13 years Labor did nothing about it. I know, they were going to do it in the 14th year—of course they were! I do them a disservice. Also out of the Federation Fund we are making a contribution to that magnificent building, the National Gallery of Victoria.When I was in Western Australia on the Australia Day weekend, I had the opportunity of announcing, with the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Court, a contribution of $80 million to the Jervoise Bay infrastructure project which, I point out, unless my geogra phy deserts me, is in the electorate of the honourable member for Fremantle. Could I be wrong? Could she be a Labor member? Indeed, it is in the electorate of the honourable member for Fremantle. Dear, oh dear—$80 million.Another project is the Corowa bridge construction, which will be an important and historic link between New South Wales and Victoria of $12 million. Also, my colleague the Minister for Sport and Tourism announced the other day the contribution towards the refurbishment of the historic St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney of $5 million which will make a very significant contribution, along with an equal amount of Commonwealth subvention for refurbishment of St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney, in the restoration of those very fine buildings.Having recalled what has already been announced, I would like to inform the House of two other important government decisions which carry implications for all honourable members without exception. In relation to $100 million of the Federation Fund—RH4KERRMr Kerr—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: standing orders specifically exclude question time being used for announcements of government policy. The Prime Minister is specifically saying that he is using this question time to announce government policy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is in order in answering the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Out of the Federation Fund, there will be an amount of $70 million set aside for medium sized cultural and heritage projects, particularly—8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Another rort!Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—They cannot help it. They have learnt nothing. If you really want to jump in and get on the sticky paper, they are the world's best at doing it. I repeat, $70 million will be set aside for medium sized cultural and heritage projects costing up to $5 million. In relation to the final $30 million, the government recognises that a proper observance of the centenary of Federation requires the development of events at the grassroots and appropriate recognition of the importance of federation involving local communities. Borrowing from the highly successful example of the Australia Remembers program which provided an equality of funds to each federal electorate irrespective of political representation throughout Australia, my government has decided to make available a sum of $200,000 to each federal electorate irrespective of its political representation in this parliament.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Come on; keep coming!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask honourable members to restrain themselves.ZD4Mr HOWARD—That $200,000 will be made available and it will be the responsibility of whoever is the federal member to get together a local committee to put forward a proposition to the minister in charge. There will be criteria laid down and I will be writing to all members of the House. Everybody will be treated equally because the centenary of Federation does not belong to one or other side of politics. It belongs to all Australians and this is a practical demonstration of that commitment.831831Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister assure this House that, under the new employment arrangements, employers will have the choice of either taking on a job seeker for free or taking on a job seeker for whom they will have to pay a minimum fee of around $200 to $300? What incentive will employers have to take on someone they have to pay for as against taking on someone for whom they do not have to pay anything, such as a married woman coming back into the work force? 831Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have already answered the question raised in relation to married women. Let me make it very clear to the House that the difference between our approach and your approach is that we are offering the unemployed hope and choice. They are two things that you never offered them, because when you were in government you drove unemployment to a post-Depres sion high. The bloke who now leads your party, the Leader of the Opposition, presided over an unemployment rate of 11.2 per cent. That is the worst unemployment rate that Australia has had since the Great Depression. The same Leader of the Opposition presided over a youth unemployment rate of 32 per cent. All that those opposite can do—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. As much as I hate to interrupt the Prime Minister on auto-gibber, I go for relevance—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think you can leave that epithet out. Have you a point of order?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—On the question of relevance, the point is this: there was a specific question asked on whether or not the Prime Minister was aware of and accepted the situation that a person who was unemployed but not on benefit—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Prime Minister is within the standing orders.MG4LEEMr Lee—He is making a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—He is not now making a point of order; he is expanding on it.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—No, I am not. The question was about the fact that for people who are not on benefit there will be an obligation on employers to pay the particular agency an amount from $200 to $250. The question to the Prime Minister was to seek confirmation of whether or not that is a fact and, if it is a fact, would it not put a person like a married woman who is trying to re-enter the work force into a situation of disadvantage? It was simple.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is now arguing the case. He will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is within the standing orders and is answering the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think he was here when I read out that letter from Employment National. I think that letter from Employment National completely answers it. But, as the honourable member for Batman has given me the opportunity of saying so, let me again remind the House that what we are embarked upon with this new job market scheme is a drive to give to the unemployed of Australia a sense of hope, a sense of optimism and the reality of choice that was never available under the former government. Only the other day, when I was visiting an electorate—I was in the electorate of the member for the Northern Territory—I had a number of people come up to me. There was a level of enthusiasm within the business community of Darwin that would put even the cynicism of the Labor Party to shame. There was a tremendous sense of hope and optimism. A number of people came up to me and spoke very enthusiastically about the government's new labour market system.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order that goes to relevance. This is a highly specific question which he did not answer yesterday, but he thinks he did. His answer is absolutely irrelevant to it.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I answered it very specifically yesterday. It is perfectly obvious that all the Labor Party wants to do on this new plan is whinge and carp. I will finish on this note. It is a very interesting piece of double standard on the part of the opposition. When it comes to the Natural Heritage Trust, it is wrong for—Mr Crean interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is quite within the standing orders. The Prime Minister is drawing an analogy. There is nothing wrong in doing that.ZD4Mr HOWARD—When it comes to the Natural Heritage Trust, the Labor Party is running around Australia saying, `Isn't it shocking? Isn't it terrible that the minister should have any authority to take any decisions?' But when it comes to the labour market program, they are running around saying, `Isn't it shocking that all the decision should be taken by an arms-length group of public servants?' Every question time they are begging the minister to intervene and to overturn decisions that have been made by an arms-length group of public servants, yet in relation to the Natural Heritage Trust they are alleging that that amounts to corrupt behaviour.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the Prime Minister is straying from the question now.ZD4Mr HOWARD—You are a mob of hypocrites on this issue.832832Baldwin, Bob, MPMr BOB BALDWINLL6PatersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Has the minister seen reports claiming the end of bulk-billing in the Newcastle area, and is the minister aware of any similar claims elsewhere in Australia? Minister, are these reports accurate? What action is the government considering to protect bulk-billing? 832Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I did see reports of this. Firstly, it was on the Today Tonight show on Friday, 27 February and, secondly, it was picked up by the Leader of the Opposition in a speech that he gave last night. The Leader of the Opposition said:In the Hunter, bulk-billing is now virtually unobtainable for ordinary families.I was concerned about the Today Tonight report, so I asked the Health Insurance Commission to give me the data on the level of bulk-billing in the Hunter to get some objective evidence as to whether or not the claims were correct.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Don't say it is not happening in the Hunter.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The honourable member should be aware that, on about 12 October, the Australian Medical Association started what effectively is industrial action in the Hunter in an attempt to increase GP rebates, so if there was any effect on this you would expect to see it in the December quarter figures from last year, which are the last quarterly figures we have.There are 680 general practitioners who live in the Hunter region, with 220 in Newcastle. Of the 680 GPs who live in the Hunter region, it is true that 12 do not bulk-bill at all—eight part-time and four full-time GPs. The rest bulk-bill some or all patients.Opposition members interjecting—8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Just wait a second, sucker.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—That is unparliamentary language. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The language is acceptable and I think it is rather better than some I have heard in this place.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—If you look at the doctors in Newcastle who were the subject of the report, there are 220 GPs in Newcastle. Of these, 36 are not in active practice, so there are 184 doctors practising. Of the 184 doctors, 30 per cent bulk-bill everything—30 per cent of all the active doctors in Newcastle bulk-bill 99 or 100 per cent of all their medical services. Of the other doctors, if you look at the overall bulk-billing rate in Newcastle, 77 per cent of all general practice services in the December quarter were bulk-billed. Far from bulk-billing being virtually unobtainable for ordinary families, the fact is that 30 per cent of doctors bulk-bill everything, and 77 per cent of all services are bulk-billed. Out of the 680 doctors in the Hunter, only 12 bulk-bill nothing.The second point that was made on the Today Tonight show related to the incomes of GPs. Dr Mellows said that `if you look at the average income of GPs, which is reported to be $42,000 a year, you would wonder why people do medicine'. If that were true you would wonder why people would do medicine. I also took out the aggregated figures on incomes for doctors in Newcastle. Some 10 per cent of GPs in Newcastle last year received billings of between $250,000 and $320,000—that is before practice payments of $13,000 to $42,000 a practice, before above schedule fees, before work cover, before medico-legal and before any sessional fees. Far from having an average income of $42,000, general practitioners do rather well. I admit that this is before practice costs, but even after practice costs it is still a very substantial income.I will make a few points on this. I do not mind people earning a high income. The overwhelming majority of doctors are hard working and they work for their money. I do not blame Today Tonight for being duped by a small number of doctors. But it appears that what has happened in this case is that a handful of GPs in Newcastle have got together, decided to take this action and sought media attention for their plight. If this is true, it may constitute collusive behaviour in breach of section 45 of the Trade Practices Act, and I have decided to refer the matter to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, with a request that it be investigated and, if necessary, that action be taken.I make a final point. I have some sympathy with general practitioners in that their rebates have not gone up in the last five years as much as for other doctors. This is because of a decision taken in 1993, when the Leader of the Opposition was then Minister for Finance, to half index GP rebates across the forward estimates and in perpetuity. The net effect of this decision has been to take $1.25 per consultation off general practitioner incomes. Far from bleating that you can hardly find a doctor who bulk-bills, the Leader of the Opposition should examine his own motives and realise that it was his decision that has reduced GP incomes by $1.25 per consultation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I urge ministers to give shorter answers. The answer was very interesting and very useful but, at the same time, ministerial answers are extraordinarily long and I would suggest that it would be better if you can keep them shorter.833833Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I reiterate the question to the Prime Minister that was asked previously, because he seems to have a misunderstanding of what he dealt with yesterday. Are you aware that employers who take on unemployed who are not on benefit but who come through an agency—one of those to which you have awarded contracts—are likely to have to pay a minimum fee of about $200 to $300? What incentive is there for such employers to take on people in those categories, like the wives of people who are beneficiaries or are working, and like the spouses of Defence Force personnel? What incentive is there to take them on in those circumstances?833Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The basis of the question is wrong.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: a question fully answered cannot be renewed, but I think that the Prime Minister has completed his answer.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I repeat my answer: the basis of the Leader of the Opposition's question is wrong.834834Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Could the Treasurer inform the House of the problems faced by low income families under the present Australian taxation system. What benefits would be gained by low income families, particularly in my electorate of Makin, if the coalition introduced broad-ranging tax reforms at the next election?834Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Makin for her question, because I know how well she represents families in her electorate—families who are struggling under the current income taxation system. In 1954, an average wage earner paid 17½ per cent tax on additional earnings; so if they earned an additional dollar, they would pay 17½ per cent tax on it. By next year, an average wage earner is going to be paying 43 per cent tax on each additional earning. In 1954, a taxpayer had to earn 19 times average weekly earnings to go on the top marginal tax rate, and by the year 2000 a taxpayer will only have to be on 1.2 times average weekly earnings to be on the top marginal tax rate. What does that tell you about the taxation system? What it tells you is that the taxation system is no longer fair on average earners. That is why this government is determined to improve the Australian taxation system for average wage earners. You can get even worse and more unfair results out of the Australian taxation system if you add in the fact that people going into the work force face not only high marginal tax rates but also clawback in relation to social security.K26LATHAMMr Latham—What about low income families and the social security system?CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Werriwa is only too well aware of the social security system. I welcome the support of tax reform by the progressive members of the Australian Labor Party.It is not true that all of the members of the Australian Labor Party are as illiterate on matters of tax as the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition. If you take a family with two children aged seven and four and both parents unemployed and one of the parents goes into the work force and gets a job paying $200 per week, the effect of income tax plus clawback of social security benefits will mean that, out of the $200 they earn a week, that person will receive only $64—an effective marginal tax rate of around 70 per cent of what they actually earn. If they went to get a job getting an additional $150 per week, the take home pay would increase only by $24 a week; that is, they would lose nearly $130 out of the $150 that they earned by going into the work force.Clearly, what this is saying is that the interaction of the income tax system and the social security system is impacting very unfairly on average taxpayers. That is why this government wants to improve the tax system. We think that the tax system is unfair. We cannot understand why the Australian Labor Party defends such an unfair system, why the Australian Labor Party will not join with us and say, `Taxation reform is necessary in Australia.' We cannot understand why, after 13 years, the Australian Labor Party did nothing about it and, now that they are in opposition again, why they will not join the government in favour of tax reform.There is one side of Australian politics that wants to improve the tax system—one side of Australian politics that wants to make it fairer.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the matter of relevance. The question was in relation to the government's responsibilities. It must be. This does not address what the government is going to do and when it will announce what it proposes for the GST.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order.CT4Mr COSTELLO—We say to the progressive members of the Labor Party—the member for Werriwa is one of them, the member for Melbourne is another one; some of those who are able to think out past the failed Keating Labor years—that you ought to be joining the government on this. You know we are right. In your heart, you know we are right. You ought to be joining the government in favour of tax reform. Do not follow the failed Keating Labor ministers into an unfair tax system. Why not join with the government and improve it?835835Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister and it is on the subject of tax reform. Can the Prime Minister confirm that more than half of the submissions to the government's own tax consultative task force either do not mention or do not support a GST? Is he also aware of the statement this morning by that task force's chairman that a GST is not considered to be the centrepiece of tax reform? Will the Prime Minister now concede that you can have meaningful tax reform without a GST?835Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I should be so lucky. In answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I have seen a newspaper report, presumably the one that you quoted from. I have not personally had a discussion with Senator Gibson, but let me make it very clear that we, as a coalition in government, are prepared—unlike you—to have a go at reforming Australia's old-fashioned, out-of-date taxation system. We are prepared to have a go.The Liberal and National parties are prepared to put a political commitment down to really try to fix the Australian taxation system. Can I tell you what the Australian people are telling us. If you cared to listen, they would be telling you exactly the same thing. They think the present system is unfair. They want the present system changed and, provided what comes out of the change is in aggregate a fair alternative to the present system, they will embrace it.I laid down five principles when I announced in August last year that we would be going to the next election with an alternative taxation program. This is the crowd that had 13 long years—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on the question of relevance. It was a very simple question: will he concede that meaningful tax reform is possible without a GST?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order? That is not a point of order.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—It was a fair question, it was a very specific question and he is not answering it. He is irrelevant.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I was asked a question about the taxation reform designs of my government. I am answering that question by reminding the Australian people that we have the political courage to try to improve an unfair system—Labor does not. We have the political commitment to provide relief to ordinary Australian families—Labor does not. We do not have the track record of having told the Australian people in 1993 that we were against higher levels of indirect tax and then, immediately on getting re-elected on that false promise, jacking up every indirect tax in the country. We are not the party that ran around promising l-a-w tax cuts and then repudiating them.I want to remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that five principles were laid down when I announced that we were going to have tax reform. I can assure the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that when our plan is unveiled all of those principles will be met. All I can say to those opposite is: ask me more questions. Ask me questions every day about taxation reform. Every time you ask me a question, it gives me the opportunity to tell the Australian people that we are in favour of having a go at fixing the taxation system and that you are against it.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The question was to the advice available to him from his own backbench task force—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order? You are not there to argue.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—The question was—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order? VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—I have to remind you, Mr Speaker, what the question was so you can determine whether it is relevant to the answer. That is all I am doing.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You have to raise a point of order or you do not have the call.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—He is irrelevant, because he is not answering the question on whether he can do all that without having a GST. Can you, John? Tell us.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is entirely in order. I call the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—As I was saying before that unwelcome monologue, there were five principles that were laid down. Those five principles will be honoured. I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition keep doing us a favour, keep asking these questions, keep giving us an opportunity to remind the Australian public that the coalition is for tax reform and you are for doing nothing.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order; the Prime Minister will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have finished.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The Prime Minister has been sneaking around without his tax policies out in the public domain for the last 10 months. He is going to be asked a few questions on it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has finished his answer. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.836836Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, the Maritime Union of Australia is going to strike tomorrow in pursuit of higher wages. Can the minister inform the House of the average level of wages for wharfies? Can the minister also outline the government's response to this dispute and how the MUA justifies its position? 836Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I think all members of the House would be interested to know that the basis of the industrial action being taken by the MUA tomorrow is to take all the rorts and the rip-offs which they today get by allowance and overtime and put all those into a base salary. On top of that, they have got the hide and the greed to ask for a pay increase of $4,500 a year.This is a claim based on greed and vengeance by the MUA which is being supported by none other than the Labor Party. For years, they were responsible for the rorts and the rip-offs on the Australian waterfront, which is one of the contributors to Australia's foreign debt because of its inability to efficiently move goods across the Australian waterfront. Now, by their silence, the Labor Party are sitting, applauding and endorsing the MUA and their campaign of greed and their campaign to maintain the rorts and the rip-offs which are so evident on the Australian waterfront.The wharfies are asking for an extra $90 a week at a cost to the employer of approximately $130 a week per employee. That will add an extra $22½ million to the cost of stevedoring operations in Australia, which is, in effect, another tax being imposed by the MUA on all those goods which go across the Australian waterfront. It is an outrage that this weak Leader of the Opposition, in the face of a guerilla campaign by his mates, is simply incapable of at least showing the leadership to stand up to these people.There is no doubt that the example of the crane driver who is on $90,000 a year but sits on his crane for only 14 hours a week is really starting to hit home. Yesterday, I received a letter from a wharfie in Brisbane. He said:I am truly getting sick of listening and reading about how much we earn for the year and the 14½ hours that I and my colleagues operate the crane and that we earn $90,000.He then set out to correct me. He said that, for the year ending 30 June 1997, he earned $80,414. In the year before, he only earned the average—$74,000. Now his mates back in Sydney, with the support of the Labor Party, are asking for another $4,500.In response to the member's question, I can tell him that the average wharfie is on about $74,000 a year and you are lucky to get 30 hours a week out of them in any average week. As a comparison, nurses and policemen—who really do put in for the community—earn something like half that amount. It is a continuing testament to the weakness of the Leader of the Opposition because he is yet to condemn the guerrilla and thuggish tactics of the MUA.837837Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is also to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. While on the theme of rorts and rip-offs, is the minister aware of deep concern among 600 workers and their families laid off by the New Zealand owned ANZCO company at Blayney abattoir over the non-payment of redundancy and termination entitlements? What guarantees under current laws can employees have that their entitlements will be met by a foreign owned company which wrongly blames a shortage and high price of stock for its closure, thus enabling it to delay paying termination payments for up to eight months, by which time—like Ashanti in Cobar—it may be belly up?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will draw his question to a conclusion.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—Fair go. This is a vital question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no question that is not a vital question. He can finish his question but he should draw it to a conclusion, as I said. Have you finished?KL6Mr ANDREN—I have, but I wondered whether the minister got the last part of it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Thank you.837Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I am aware of this closure and the general circumstances, and I understand it is in the member's electorate. Let me say on behalf of the government that, where employers fail to meet their entitlements, the employees are certainly entitled to take action. The Office of the Employment Advocate is available to those employees, as it is to any employees who have been duded by their employer.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—What are you doing about it?WI4Mr REITH—The awards management branch of the federal department for which I am responsible will certainly sit down with those employees and, where we can take action, we will. I say to any employer who fails to meet their entitlements and obligations they have to employees that the government will stand shoulder to shoulder with the employees and we will take every action against those employers. We will support the rights of employees, as we will support the rights of employers, to the full protection of the law.837837Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, many young people in my electorate of Cowan have welcomed, and are quite excited about, the new opportunities and careers that have been opened up for them by the government through its new apprenticeship scheme. Could the minister inform the House about the success of new apprenticeships and the number of new opportunities being offered to young people this year?837Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Cowan for his question. I know that he is dedicated to expanding apprenticeship opportunities for young people. He himself left school, I think, at 16 to take up an apprenticeship, and many like him have gained a wonderful start to their careers through apprenticeships. Unfortunately, the message that the Labor Party gave young people in this country was that it was all right to drop out of school and live on the dole.This government has made a major commitment to the 70 per cent of school leavers who are not going on to university, and we have put the resources into backing that commitment—$187 million over four years. In fact, during the first term of this government, we put four times as much money into supporting vocational education opportunities in schools as Labor put in in its entire 13 years of government.As a consequence, in the last year of the Labor Party, there were only some 3,000 students in Australian schools actually undertaking industry endorsed programs of vocational education. In 1997, as a result of this government's policy, there were 38,000 students in schools—a 12 times increase. We put our money where our mouth is. In 1996-97, there were some 98,000 commencements in new apprenticeships, and I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that this year the government will more than exceed its promise to create 100,000 new apprenticeships.This is a wonderful opportunity for young Australians with a commonsense, down-to-earth, practical policy that provides them with opportunities. The only regret we have is that, while everyone in Australia is pleased with this, there is one group who is not—that is, the Australian Labor Party. The member for Werriwa said on ABC radio in South Australia on 15 October last year:I really fear, particularly under this federal government, that the balance is tipping away towards the vocational end.Make no mistake: the member for Werriwa has let the cat out of the bag. If Labor gets back into office, it will take away these apprenticeships and it will cut opportunities for the 70 per cent not going on to university. Labor tried to kill the apprenticeship system when it was in office in favour of the schemes favoured by its union mates, and it will try to do it again.838838Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Is the minister aware that, in my electorate of Throsby, a woman claiming to work for the Employment Advocate has been appearing at a picket line in Port Kembla using video equipment to record the people involved? What use will you, your department or the Employment Advocate be making of these videos? Is the state of industrial relations in Australia now so bad that taxpayers' money is being used to spy on taxpayers exercising their democratic right? Minister, is this how you stand shoulder to shoulder with these employees?838Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I have absolutely no information on the subject.Mr Tanner interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—He is claiming it is. I honestly have no information whatsoever. But I can say that one of the tasks of the Office of the Employment Advocate is to ensure that the freedom of association provisions of the federal law are observed, and the advocate has been very active in pursuing instances and examples where unions have required people to be members of a union.We had a recent example of this down at Webb Dock where a non-union truck driver attempted to enter the Patrick property. He was prevented by some of your mates from the TWU, and a complaint was lodged with the Office of the Employment Advocate that very day. By the end of the day, a non-union truck driver and other persons, regardless of whether or not they were members of a union, were able to access that site.The fact of the matter is that we have a very strong ban on compulsory unionism. The advocate is doing an absolutely excellent job. If you have genuine concerns, instead of making political points, you ought to raise them with me.838838Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Would the Attorney-General inform the House whether statements regarding the leaking of confidential court documents on Christopher Skase are consistent with the evidence in this matter?838Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The confidential document to which the member for Grey refers is, of course, the one that was used by Senator Bolkus at a press conference on Monday, 5 January. That document is one to which access could be given only by a Federal Court order, and the court has informed the government that no such order had been sought or made. Yesterday I pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition's defence of Senator Bolkus using the document—namely, that Senator Vanstone leaked the affidavit—was quite wrong. Yesterday I also pointed out that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's defence of Senator Bolkus—namely, that the material leaked was already in the Daily Telegraph article of Monday, 5 January—was also quite wrong.Let us have a look at what Senator Bolkus says in his own defence. On the 7.30 Report last week Senator Bolkus said that the document was with the media. However, no evidence was offered. Senator Bolkus asserted last week through a spokesman that the document was on the public record and that he regarded it as being in the public domain. There does not seem to be any evidence of that either. The Telegraph article did not refer to the affidavit. At his press conference, which was after the article had appeared, Senator Bolkus read from it. But if the affidavit was already in the media, why did he then say that he could not give it out and he would proceed to read from it off the record? It cannot be mere coincidence that copies of the two pages from which he read and the two passages to which he referred and which were underlined—VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to standing order 146 which says:A question fully answered cannot be renewed.Surely your recollection is the same as mine—that yesterday's question and answer are absolutely identical. The Attorney is just repeating himself.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The subject matter is the same. The question and the answer are slightly different.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Given the ruling you just made, I would also draw your attention to the request—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I want to know what the point of order you are raising is.RH4KERRMr Kerr—My point of order is that this is a question which sought a legal opinion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is not a legal opinion. RH4KERRMr Kerr—The Attorney has been asked to provide his view whether there is evidence in relation to a particular matter. That must be a legal opinion unless your ruling is so oblique as to escape my understanding.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. It is a factual advice that I think he was seeking.7V5Mr WILLIAMS—I say again that it cannot be mere coincidence that the two pages from which Senator Bolkus read, containing the passages he read underlined, were boxed in the gallery later the same day. The material was in the media, but it was only there after Senator Bolkus put it there. The inconsistencies between the evidence and the defences put up by Labor spokesmen reveal that there is no defence.839839O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that he told farmers and businesses in Dubbo three weeks ago that the government's tax reform package would hit pay dirt by reducing the excise on diesel. Is the abolition of the fuel tax still your bottom line for supporting a GST?839Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—The government is continuing to develop its tax reform plans. We have plans and they will hit pay dirt, as the Prime Minister reminds me, and they will deliver a fair deal to country Australia—a fair deal on transport fuel taxes and a fair deal for PAYE taxpayers who have carried far more than their fair share of the burden of government under Labor. We stand for reform. We will deliver that reform. You are a policy vacuum following your Hobart conference and you should hang your heads in shame.839839Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Has the minister seen recent statements to the effect that $1.7 billion has been taken from the public health sector for private health incentives? Minister, can you advise the House what is the government's response to these claims?840Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for his question. In the same speech that the Leader of the Opposition made last night, where he was using Today Tonight as his personal research department, he also made claims that the government had taken $1.7 billion from public health, whatever `public health' means. He amplified that on radio this morning when he somehow defined the fiscal contribution that states have made to the Commonwealth's budget deficit reduction task as public health, which only shows that the Leader of the Opposition has no understanding of how the hospitals run, or no understanding of how financial assistance grants run.The simple fact is that this was made on a voluntary basis by the states as a contribution of $320 million a year. It has nothing to do with public health. It really only shows your foolishness and your buffoonery, and the fact that you are prepared to say or do anything to achieve an end, no matter how false it is.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will reply to the question.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The reason the states were giving this fiscal contribution was that the former Minister for Finance, now the Leader of the Opposition, left a $10½ billion deficit that they were prepared to help us address. The second point that the Leader of the Opposition somehow claimed was related to public health was the Commonwealth dental program, announced in the dying days of the 1993 election campaign by the then Prime Minister, Paul Keating, as a four-year program. Six months early, when the number of claimed or promised cases had been treated, we met the original promise made in the dying days of the 1993 election. We did not keep it going when you, yourself, had not made any promise to keep it going. The third point is that the Leader of the Opposition claims that the PBS is somehow taking from public health programs. This year we are spending $235 million more on the PBS than we did last year, and last year we spent $211 million more than we did in the year before.What we have simply done in the PBS is reorder our priorities for which we make no apologies. We have reordered our priorities to fund higher cost newer drugs. We have reordered our priorities to make sure that these are available in a timely manner rather than merely funding `me too' drugs. The Leader of the Opposition attempts to claim that we have somehow cut $1.7 billion from health; his figures do not stack up. To note that a fiscal contribution could somehow be taken from public hospitals simply shows he does not have a clue how they work.840840Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen today's ACCI-Westpac survey which shows a collapse in manufacturing business confidence, the weakest reading in export expectation in six years and less jobs in the sector? Prime Minister, will you now confirm that your complacency and failure to act on the Asian economic crisis, together with the cuts to significant export programs, are leading this nation to lower economic activity, lower exports and fewer jobs?840Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thought Gareth was good.CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—You're making Gareth look competent!ZD4Mr HOWARD—That is not a bad achievement; that is a very considerable achievement.The member for Hotham is engaging in that age old Labor Party tactic: you talk gloom and doom. You talk the Australian economy down. He invites me to talk about employment. I will talk about employment: employment has risen by 145,000 in the last four months. I will talk about investment: business investment in Australia is running at record levels. I will talk about inflation: inflation in Australia is the lowest of any country in the OECD. I will talk about rate of economic growth: our rate of economic growth is equal to or better than any member country of the G7. Let me warm to the task. Let me talk about interest rates.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, under standing order 144, my point of order goes to relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Standing order 145 is relevance. DT4CREANMr Crean—I thank you for making me relevant, Mr Speaker.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Sit down!WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is a point of order being taken. I cannot interrupt that point of order to hear yours.DT4CREANMr Crean—My point of order goes to relevance. I did ask about those aspects but I asked about them in the context of the manufacturing sector and a survey released today. The Prime Minister has made no mention of it and I would ask you to draw his attention to it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to the question of relevance. You cannot on the one hand ask a question which is wide ranging, has a lengthy introductory statement and invites debate and then complain about lack of relevance and specificity in the minister's response.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will resume his answer. The Prime Minister's answer is entirely relevant and entirely within the standing orders of this place.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Of course it is relevant. Having dealt with employment, having dealt with investment, having dealt with inflation, having dealt with growth, let me deal with interest rates. In just over two years, interest rates have fallen by the equivalent of $300 a month for the average home buyer in Australia. I know that nobody opposite likes to be reminded of this, but that is the equivalent of a wage rise of $100 a week for the average worker—$100 a week for the average worker.As a result of that, the great majority of the Australian people are simply not going to listen to this talking down of the Australian economy. They are not going to listen to this doomsday talk from those who sit opposite. They are going to recognise quality economic management when they see it.841841Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs. Minister, how does the government plan to prevent Australian workers and companies, such as in my electorate of Gilmore, suffering from the effects of unfair dumping of imported products onto the local markets?841Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Gilmore for her question. It gives me the opportunity to report to her and the House that the government has approved a comprehensive reform of Australia's anti-dumping and countervailing duty mechanisms.DT4CREANMr Crean—This is our bill.GT4Mr TRUSS—The workers in the electorate of Gilmore and for that matter all around Australia can now look forward to speedy relief if there is unfair dumping of products in Australia. Australia will have the fastest anti-dumping mechanisms in the world and also, I might add, the fairest.DT4CREANMr Crean—Thank you.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will bask in his effected glory but silently.GT4Mr TRUSS—Under Labor, under the former government, it took 220 days before a final decision could be made to impose dumping or countervailing duties. Under the coalition, under the new arrangement, this result will be achieved in 155 days, and interim or provisional measures can be put in place in 60 days.DT4CREANMr Crean—That's our bill. Follow the leader.GT4Mr TRUSS—Labor's complicated two-stream process is to be abolished. The Anti-Dumping Authority is to go. We will have a single, thorough and efficient system which will deliver rapid results to Australian industry. The parties will be consulted throughout the process to ensure that it is fair and equitable.DT4CREANMr Crean—What about China as a market economy?GT4Mr TRUSS—Another very important point is that this announcement fulfils yet another coalition election promise to deliver faster anti-dumping mechanisms. I have been interested in the interjections from the honourable member for Hotham. He has been running around the countryside telling us how slow and ineffective the current mechanisms are. Senator Murphy has been echoing that as well. In the Advocate he described the process as too slow, repetitive and inefficient. Let me remind the House who introduced these proposals. It was those opposite. The Labor Party introduced this slow, cumbersome system that they are now so vigorous in criticising.Not only did they introduce the system, but when they were in government they said it could not be done any faster or any better. The honourable member for Hotham said in the House of Representatives on 25 November 1992, `One cannot magically shorten the anti-dumping period and expect to have better anti-dumping provisions.' In government they could not do it any faster. We will deliver faster results.842842Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Mr Speaker—4G4DOWNERMr Downer—You are going to tell us what your policy is, are you?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Honourable members on both sides will remain silent.PG6Ms MACKLIN—My question is directed to the Minister for Family Services. Does the Minister for Family Services stand by his statement in the House yesterday where he said:Accommodation charges go to capital upgrading . . . the daily fees go directly to nursing homes.Is it not a fact that not one extra dollar of the $133 million raised by the extra daily fee will go to increasing nursing home budgets?LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—How is the Casey preselection going?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think he is probably quite capable of answering the question himself.842Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I do stand by what I said yesterday. Accommodation charges that are raised go to capital upgrades. Daily fees that are paid by residents go to the care needs of those residents and those funds go to the hands of the providers. That is the factual situation. What you are trying to do—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was very specific: is it a fact that not one extra dollar raised by the extra daily fee will go to nursing home budgets?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister's answer is entirely within the standing orders. I call the Minister for Family Services.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—There is really nothing further that I can add to what the factual situation is. The problem that you have is that you have come into the House—to ask probably the last question before question time finishes—to try to keep this issue alive. The question you should be asking, as I showed yesterday is: what did the failed former finance minister do? He did nothing to fund the capital needs of nursing homes in this country. You have done nothing. You will do nothing. This is just a political ploy that you are carrying on with.842842Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Small and medium sized business people in my electorate are concerned by reports in today's newspapers which reveal that talks have broken down between Patricks and the Maritime Union of Australia to avert a 48-hour strike in Port Botany from tomorrow. Can you inform the House of the genesis of this dispute and what the claims being made by the MUA would actually cost?842Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I sincerely thank the member for Moreton for his question because today we could not get one from the other side on waterfront. Where is my Kylie Minoguer? The Prime Minister got one and the Treasurer got one. These guys are so politically embarrassed about the waterfront and their own defence of the indefensible that they cannot even muster the political courage to stand up here and ask me just one question about the waterfront. So I do sincerely thank the member for his question.The industrial action that we are about to see in Sydney is the culmination of years of failure by the previous Labor government which has led to the circumstance today where Australia's exporters, Australia's farmers, those people who rely on the $120 billion worth of goods going across the Australian waterfront are unable to obtain an efficient and reliable service on the Australian waterfront. You can trace it all the way back to the time when the Leader of the Opposition was the senior member of the then Labor government. They had a report done on the waterfront. The advice to the government was at page 31, volume 1, of the report by the Interstate Commission entitled Waterfront Investigation—Conclusions and Recommendations. It stated:Although there was general agreement that the number of waterfront unions should be reduced, more concern was expressed in the second round about possible abuses of power by a single maritime union.In other words, they were told nearly 10 years ago, back in 1989, that if we are to have an efficient waterfront and if we are to do away with the rorts, inefficiencies and the industrial action 10 times the national average then we would have to have a more competitive system on the Australian waterfront. If we were to do something about Australia's foreign debt these guys would have needed to have the courage to stand up to the thuggery of the MUA and require a far more efficient waterfront.They failed to do so for years and today they do not even have the guts to stand up and ask a simple question about the state of the waterfront. It is no wonder, given those inefficiency. For example, the rort of the day is that of the three man lashing team. It is a variation on the Three Musketeers motto—`All for one and one for all.' Except in the wharfies case for the lashing team it is `One sick, all sick at full pay.' One sick and they all go out.This is what you think is admirable about the Australian waterfront. This is why you are embarrassed to ask questions. You do not even have what it takes in your own tactics committee to say, `Listen guys, it's about time we finally had a position which is somehow distant from the MUA.' You are bound hand and foot. You must be the weakest Leader of the Labor Party we have seen in 30 years. It is absolutely pathetic. The Labor Party are the architects of the circumstance on the Australian waterfront. Not only was WIRA a failure, but its failure is evident on the waterfront today. I will give you two examples. The first is the rorts and rip-offs that we have seen for years.The second is that after they forked out $420 million to wharfies to become redundant, we now find that in the Patricks organisation alone there are 290 wharfies, who are classified as casual, who were actually paid out in the WIRA process. They were paid out $80,000 to $90,000 plus superannuation. Those in the Patricks organisation were paid out $25 million to $29 million to get rid of them and they are still there, in this particular case, earning $30,000 to $40,000 a year as casuals. This is the legacy of Labor's ties to the trade union movement. You are still bound hand and foot to them and it is testimony to your chronic weakness.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice843843843Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to add to an answer.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—During question time, the member for Throsby made an allegation against the Office of the Employment Advocate. I have had my office ring the Office of the Employment Advocate, and I am advised that the allegation is a complete fantasy. I am also advised that the Office of the Employment Advocate had this allegation put to them last week by the Illawarra Mercury and that they denied it in their response. I am further advised that the Illawarra Mercury published that denial and therefore I can say that, on the advice that I have, the allegation is fanciful and without any basis. I ask the member for Throsby to come back into the House to apologise to the public servants who work in the advocate's office.Questions to the Speaker844844844Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—Mr Speaker, you would be aware that backbenchers in this place occasionally find themselves in Canberra without staff. It would be helpful on such occasions if we could redirect our telephones to mobile phones so that, wherever we are in the building, we can still service our offices. From advice given by PISO, I understand that this is technically possible; however, there is a financial constraint. I would ask you to consider making additional funding available to PISO to enable this practice to take place.844Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I take note of the honourable gentleman's question and will respond further to him tomorrow.Personal Explanations84415:25:00844Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALE—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALE—Last night in this House the member for Barton (Mr McClelland) said in his speech on the higher education amendment bill that the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) had refused a request from me to see certain people on this issue—that is, the issue of the University of New South Wales and the Oatley campus, which is in the electorate of the member for Barton. The member was misinformed. I have not requested the minister to see anyone other than myself and Senator Tierney.Questions to the Speaker844844844Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I have two questions for you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, are we to interpret your failure to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest that the honourable member does not reflect on the chair, or I will be reflecting on him.FI4Mr ALLAN MORRIS—I am trying to interpret how you are going to run this House, so that we can understand. The Minister for Health and Family Services displayed in the chamber a diagram which he waved around the room. The question is: is that now permitted?844Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—So have many members and so do many members—I think that, within limits, that is legitimate. It is permitted only in very restricted circumstances. It was not a newspaper; it was a graph. There is a considerable difference between a graph and a newspaper. If people wish to display graphs, that is altogether different from displaying a newspaper.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In recent times the practice has developed of using questions to the Speaker to debate matters of standing orders. That is not a practice which has been usual in this House. I invite you to suggest to all members on both sides that questions to you after question time are not an opportunity to just debate general matters of standing orders. There is a proper procedures committee for all these issues, and that is where they should be dealt with.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable member for Newcastle, I suggest he take note of that suggestion by the Leader of the House. There is a procedures committee and, if he has questions regarding the standing orders of the House, that is a very good place to commence his debate.844844Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—Mr Speaker, my second question is: your predecessor wrote to us and said, `I intend to require that a minister does not unduly digress from the point of the question directed to him or her.' Is it your intention to adhere to that statement?844Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I always follow worthwhile precedents.Documents844844Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Act—Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—Report 1996-97—Erratum.Advance to the Minister for Finance—Statements for December 1997 and January 1998.Supporting applications of issues from the Advance during December 1997 and January 1998.Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act—Nuclear Safety Bureau—Report for period 1 July to 30 September 1997.Commonwealth Electoral Act—Australian Electoral Commission—Election 1996—Funding and disclosure—Report for election held on 2 March 1996.Redistribution of electoral divisions, 1997—Australian Capital Territory.Queensland—Volumes 1 and 2.Commonwealth Grants Commission Act—Commonwealth Grants Commission—Report—General revenue grants relativities—1998 update.Copyright Act—Copyright Agency Limited—Report for 1996-97.Department of Primary Industries and Energy—Business Ethics, Security and Investigation Unit—Forest industry structural adjustment package—Report of a preliminary investigation into allegations of corruption and concerns regarding the operation, January 1998.States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 1992—Report on financial assistance granted to each State in respect of 1996.United Nations Human Rights Committee—International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—Communication No. 751/1997—Outline.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Act—Nuclear Safety Bureau—Report for period 1 July to 30 September 1997.Debate (on motion by Mr Crean) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance84584510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The ongoing concern amongst older Australians created by the government's policies, particularly in the area of aged care.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call the honourable member for Jagajaga, I draw her attention and that of the other members who will participate in the debate to the fact that there is a related item on the business paper for today. While members participating can obviously refer to that legislation, I would suggest they should not refer in detail to the questions or clauses, otherwise they will be anticipating the debate.15:29:00845Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—From 1 March this year, all older Australians needing nursing home care have faced an extra daily fee imposed on nursing home and hostel residents by the Howard government. What the public understand, particularly those who need to go into nursing homes—but this Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) has shown again in question time today that he does not understand—is that the nursing homes receive not one cent of benefit from that fee. It is all clawed back by this government. So the $133 million that is raised from the pockets of nursing home and hostel residents in this country will be collected by nursing home owners. They are effectively being turned into tax collectors by this government. All of the money, $133 million from nursing home residents, will be clawed back by this government. It is a tax by anything but name.However, under repeated questioning yesterday—and we tried again today to get the minister to face the facts—the minister says, `No, the money raised by the daily fees goes to nursing homes.' The nursing homes certainly collect it. `It does not go to the government; it goes to upgrading nursing homes.' So we asked the question: how much extra will go to the budgets of nursing homes? The minister comes in here again today and says, `No, it is going to nursing homes.'Minister, unfortunately nobody out there in nursing homes believes you. I am sure you have seen a comment from the Catholics, the Anglicans, the Baptists and the Uniting Church which they put out on 27 February this year. They made it very clear to you—if you did not understand it before then, you are certainly not demonstrating that you understand it here in the parliament—that the extra daily fees do not contribute any extra money to the upkeep of the homes. So, as the minister said yesterday, it does not go to the upgrading of nursing homes. They said that no extra money goes to the upkeep of the homes; no extra money goes to the care of residents; and no extra money goes to the future development of services. What it means is that no extra money goes to the nursing homes. Sooner or later, the minister will have to come into this House and correct the answers that he has given in question time yesterday and today.The minister has been told this for some time. It is not as if it is a new matter that has only just been brought to his attention. In press releases last year, in November and again in December, the Australian Catholic Health Care Association made it very clear:New income tested charges to apply from 1 March 1998 still do not add an extra dollar to care nor to capital funding.Not one extra dollar goes to care or capital funding. So sooner or later, Minister, you are going to have to come clean to the Australian public, particularly to nursing home residents, that not one extra dollar of this extra daily fee is going to go to improve the lot of people in nursing homes. It was made clear to you again in December:The Australian Catholic Health Care Association again calls on the Government to use the income testing charges, being introduced from 1 March 1998 . . . to finance both care and capital . . . The government has taken no notice whatsoever of the calls by all the churches for the government to put the money from this income tested fee into improving the care of people in nursing homes.Of course, elderly people in Australia are becoming used to the way in which this government goes about treating them. Let us go back over the absolute debacle that we saw with the introduction of accommodation bonds. It is exactly the same. The minister at the time refused to acknowledge, just like this minister is refusing to acknowledge, that the income tested fee has nothing to do with improving the care of residents in nursing homes. So it was through the whole of last year that we had this whole government—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Speaker, quite rightly, pointed out to the honourable member for Jagajaga that there was a danger that we could anticipate debate in this MPI and warned her. In House of Representatives Practice on page 533, it is pointed out:Where the topic of an MPI has been very similar to the subject matter of a bill due for imminent debate, the discussion has been permitted, subject to the proviso that the debate on the bill should not be canvassed.Today, as listed on the Notice Paper , this particular item will be covered by legislation, and the matters raised by the member for Jagajaga will no doubt be canvassed again in the debate.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member for Fisher, and I acknowledge and remind the House of what Mr Speaker said before he vacated the chair. I would also refer the House to the Hansard of 26 May 1986, when Speaker Child made a ruling on this, which I could perhaps summarise by saying that a matter of public importance is not brought forward unless the Speaker has ruled it in order. I would also like to say that under standing order 82, the Speaker or the occupant of this chair has a discretion in relation to the anticipation rule. I believe, as do others, that the discretion should be used in its widest sense where a matter of public importance is involved. I do repeat, though, what Mr Speaker said about reference to the details of the bill.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—The point I am trying to make is that this government spent all of last year misleading the Australian public about whether or not their family homes would have to be sold to get a nursing home bed. They spent the whole year misleading the Australian public. What this minister is doing now is refusing to acknowledge that not one cent of his extra daily fee is going to improve the quality of care in nursing homes. We had the previous Minister for Family Services, the member for Pearce (Mrs Moylan), day after day saying:No-one will be forced to sell the family home . . . I made it very clear that this government will not force people to sell the family home . . . absolute nonsense about pensioners being forced to sell the family home.On and on it went for months, denying that people would have to sell the family home. Then, of course, we had a change of minister. On 28 October, the current minister said:No-one will be forced to sell the family home.Funnily enough, a month later the current minister said:The arrangements that I am putting in place make the family home safe.So what I want to know is: how long is it going to take this minister to come clean about where the money from the extra daily fee goes? The budget papers make it very clear that it is going to the budget bottom line. That is where it is going. It is going to the budget bottom line. It is not going to do anything to improve the lot of residents of nursing homes.Let us go back to this problem of the family home. So many coalition backbenchers and parliamentary secretaries—and I have no doubt ministers as well—are now going around the country saying, `You don't have to sell the family home.' That is what we heard all of last year. Why would anybody believe that, after 50 statements from the previous minister that you will not have to sell the family home, after statements from this current minister that you will not have to sell the family home and after statements by all the backbenchers out there that you will not have to sell the family home?Let us go to a more reputable source. Let us go to the Australian Catholic Health Care Association newsletter from December. After the latest changes, what did they have to say? `Selling the family home will be the only option for many consumers.' They say that the annual fee or the accommodation charge is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. So even after we had the Prime Minister doing his triple somersault with a half-pike on A Current Affair, everybody out there still knows that if you have to pay to get into a nursing home and you have only one asset, then you will have to sell your home, you will have to remortgage your home, you will have to rent your home—your home will be the basis on which you have to pay to get into a nursing home.The Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation know too what is going to happen. Paying to move into a nursing home has not been scrapped, as they make clear in their November-December bulletin:Paying to move into a nursing home has not been scrapped, it's just that the charge will be payable in a different form . . .They also say:It is possible that some people may end up paying more this way than with a bond . . . This is a very serious matter. We have had the minister come into this House and answer to three questions so far, `The money raised by the daily fees goes to the nursing homes.' The money raised by the daily fees is collected by the nursing homes—they have become tax collectors for this government—but not one cent of it will go to improving the lot of people who live in nursing homes. It is time the minister came into this House and corrected his answer so that he is not misleading the Australian public about what is going to happen to the money from this extra daily fee.I want to finish my remarks by quoting an article by Terry Sweetman. It is an article that I think really goes to the heart of this problem. As he says, have a heart, mate, about what you are doing to nursing home residents in this country. He says:For God's sake, haven't they paid enough? They've fought our wars, they've gone hungry in the depression, they've paid their taxes—And now what is the minister doing? He is making them pay another tax because that is what this extra daily fee is. It is another tax. So not only are they having to pay $4,380 to get into a nursing home; they are paying that every year they are in the nursing home and they have to pay this extra daily fee which is nothing but a tax.RW5NELSONDr Nelson—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I ask you to consider under standing order 82 that both accommodation charges and fees do anticipate the debate of the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 . Could you please direct the member for Jagajaga to speak specifically to the MPI.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member. I have been listening very carefully. Both Mr Speaker and I have referred to this. I do not know whether you were present when I spoke about it. But I am listening very carefully and I will stop any specific reference to the bill before the House later this day.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—Terry Sweetman continues:. . . they've raised their families, they've lost their loved ones, and now they're old and still they haven't paid enough.That is what this government is saying. That is it in a nutshell: `You haven't paid enough. It doesn't matter that you are sick and old and need to go into a nursing home. It doesn't matter that the only asset you have, your home, will have to be used to pay the annual fees.'The icing on the cake is this extra tax that started on 1 March this year that will see the government raise $133 million, not one cent of which will go to improve the lot of people in nursing homes. There will not be one extra nurse employed. The food will not improve. The buildings will not improve. Nothing will improve as a result of this extra tax. It all goes to the government's bottom line. It is time the government abolished this fee and gave people who need nursing home care the care they deserve.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Before I call the minister, I say to all members that the purposes of the chamber would be better served if everyone kept quiet except the one who has the call.15:44:00848Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—People listening to this debate can tell from the extent of the interjections from the departing Labor members that this is more about the politics of aged care than about dealing in a substantial or sustainable way with some fundamental problems that we have. I think any discussion on aged care issues needs to be put in the broadest context. That is where I will start and then I will address some of the issues that have been raised by the shadow minister, the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin).The first point to recognise is that we live in a country that is seeing a demographic change—a rapid increase in ageing which we must deal with in social terms and also in infrastructural terms. I will start with infrastructure, and I know I have been belabouring this point for some time but I think it is the core problem that we have to deal with: the run-down of capital that has come from taxpayers to meet the infrastructural needs of the growing demands of those aged Australians who want to enter quality aged care residences.There are now 137,000 Australians in hostels and nursing homes in this country and that figure will grow rapidly over the next 15 to 20 years. We must commit ourselves to upgrading those homes and doing so in a way that is fair to the broad range of taxpayers. Therein lies the fundamental difference between what we on this side of the House are saying and what the Labor Party are saying. What the Labor Party did—and it makes this problem even more difficult for a government, which happens to be us at the present time—was that they ran down taxpayer support for the capital funding needs of nursing homes. Of course, the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) bears a major responsibility for that, because he was the finance minister. They ran down support to the extent where the amount of funds in 1995-96, if we had gone forward on his projections, would have been well below what was required, as shown on the graph which I have displayed before to so many, and that tells the story. The dilemma that we have is: how are we going to cater for this burgeoning demand? We have proposed a system that requires some contribution from those who can make a fair and reasonable contribution. This is in the form of the accommodation charge. We attempted first to introduce an accommodation bond and then varied it to be an accommodation charge which gives the same amount of money over a four-year period as was identified by independent advice to the Labor government at the time, that is, Professor Gregory's benchmark. We will generate those funds.As I have said to the House before, we have front-end loaded that proposal with a $20 million injection to assist with, in conjunction with the industry, that immediate upgrade and to deal with the problems identified by the quality overview that has just been completed. People will be aware that I required that there be an overview of the quality of the nursing home capital stock. We found that, of those 3,000 residences, some 250 did not reach certification. I table for the benefit of members the outcomes in each of the states. But that underpins the problem. It shows you the extent of the problem that we have. What I am concerned about is looking for an equitable way in which we can address that issue.Therefore, it is necessary to look at a partnership between those who can make a contribution and the government of the day. That is what we have put in place. I do not wish to go into details today, but we have made substantial concessions and that is what the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 —I take your order, Mr Deputy Speaker—will be dealing with tonight. Some of those concessions have been made to make it easier for those people to meet that contribution and to also detail more broadly the hardship assistance that is going to be available. That has been put in place.These are broad issues of concern not just to this country but to others. I noticed a contribution from my colleague the member for Parramatta (Mr Ross Cameron) on 2 March in the grievance debate where he quoted from two recent books. One was by Bill Shipman and was called Saving social security's dream where he talked about the American people having to confront the demographic wave that is taking place. Those points need to be addressed in this country. Another recent book in New Zealand—it is focused on New Zealand—talks about the selfish generation and what happens when you do not have a commitment to planning. These matters do require a commitment, in public policy terms, to long-term planning.Just before Christmas, I announced that we would enter into the national strategy for ageing. I have taken the liberty of writing to all groups involved in aged care in this country—actuaries, accountants, lawyers, state governments, providers—seeking their input into looking at ways in which we can develop public policy outcomes to deal with these matters in the long term. The cabinet supports this and I do not doubt that the shadow minister in the Labor Party would support it because I am sure they know now, in public policy terms, that we have to address these matters in a meaningful way. I want to indicate today that we have started that process, we have started it seriously and contributions of the quality provided by my colleague the member for Parramatta point the way in which a sensible thinking community ought to be progressing on these issues.The other matter that I want to talk about is daily fees. For 65 per cent of residents now in nursing homes, that is, 137,000 people, daily fees are capped. We are contributing over $3 billion this year to the care of 137,000 residents in nursing homes and hostels in this country, regardless of whether or not they make this additional contribution. That commitment will go forward over time by about 2,000 additional beds per year to meet the expected demand of people moving into those residences. That is without talking about the home and community care contribution which the Commonwealth makes in partnership with the states to give in-home care, which I think will be a trend in the future and which we need to embrace as a nation.You would have to be earning, as a retired person, something like $56,000 a year before you would pay the maximum fee. That puts you in millionaire class. I do not see any reason in equity why someone who has that level of income cannot be asked to make a contribution. What amazes me is that the Labor Party, who took support from us when we were in opposition trying to address the growing needs of providing opportunities to educate our young Australians—and there is an analogy here—required a contribution system to get the quality of education opportunities established in this country. And so it is with aged care. We are asking for a fair and equitable contribution because it is absolutely necessary to do so. The demographic changes and the run-down in the capital stock require us to take action. That is what we are doing.The shadow minister asked questions yesterday and today. The nature of her questions elicited the response that I gave.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Where does the money go?GJ4Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITH—The money that is paid by someone coming into a residence where they are making a self-contribution is paid to the person sitting at the front desk, and the money goes to the contribution of the care that person receives: all their food, their bedding, and so on. That is where the money actually goes.What she is trying to get at—and I guess I have got to help her; the deputy leader gave her advice before the MPI, having had two days of questions without having got it quite right—is this: the money that is paid by those who are making a contribution towards their care, in addition to what they receive from the Commonwealth government which, as I mentioned, is over $3 billion a year, changes the extent of the taxpayer contribution to the overall provision of these services. These funds are estimated to be, over the four years, about $81 million-odd. I think that is an equitable contribution to ask them to make.I go back to the accommodation charges. As those accommodation charges flow into the system over that four-year period, they will generate about $505 million. But remember the point that I made: 65 per cent of those people who are in those residences are full pensioners. The Commonwealth makes what is known as a concessional payment for those people. We make a direct payment to those people whose assets are below $22,500, to a maximum of $12 per day, using a formula. The contribution that the Commonwealth will make over that four-year period means that the total amount that will be applied for capital upgrade is about $850 million. So, when you take into account self-contribution by accommodation charge and the amount that the Commonwealth pays by way of concessional contribution over the four-year period—remembering that 65 per cent are full pensioners—we will make about an $850 million contribution to that capital.That is very significant. The opposition choose to ignore that. They have committed themselves to a political path on this matter. We are all in politics, but we also have a higher commitment, in my view, to cater for the needs of the next generation. My colleagues who are in the House know that we have to make some decisions about the needs of the next generation. Why should we be ticking everything up on the bankcard, mortgaging their future? People are entering higher quality nursing homes because of the actions that we are taking. We are asking them to make a contribution to their care by way of daily fees and to capital needs by way of an accommodation charge. It is being done under rules and arrangements that progressively are being understood. As we progressively take this information to the community, all we have to deal with is the obstruction and the misinformation primarily generated by the opposition.The shadow minister quoted some of the church groups. I am in consultation with the church groups. There will always be differences of opinion. But people ought to recognise that the church groups in this country have large reserves too. Maybe they ought to be doing just a little bit more in applying some of those reserves, I say to them in passing. It would be an interesting exercise in itself to see what level of contribution they would make.The days of going to the taxpayer as the sole, complete and total funder to meet demographic needs and population shifts will come to an end. It will not matter whether we are in government or you are in government, you will have to face this issue. That is why it is so interesting that in Hobart at the ALP national convention there were no discussions about the future policy prescription for your party. The Labor Party knows that these issues have to be faced. There are differing views within the Labor Party, we know, about how this can be done. But going back to the old Socialist Left approach, the taxpayer pays all approach where those who can make an equitable contribution have a free ride at the expense of pensioners is, I think, an absolute affront to equity and fair dealing for those people who will come next.Finally, I want to quote from the transcript of a radio program in Perth on 26 February, because I think it is quite interesting. It was the Howard Sattler program. Ms Macklin, the shadow minister, was on that program. At the end of it, we had the usual misinformation and distortion and a little bit of the emotion that we saw again today. As I said at the beginning, the extent of the interjections indicates the political nature of the approach that the Labor Party has decided to take on this matter. The announcer asked for call-ins, and somebody called Nell called in. She said:. . . your shadow minister is telling a lot of half truths.Then, in answer to a contribution from the announcer, Mr Sattler, she said:But the thing is that, by telling those half truths over radio, she is petrifying the elderly people.I think that is unforgivable. Petrifying elderly people is not—PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—They're your policies!GJ4Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITH—We can have an argument, shadow minister, about policy. If you want to have an argument about policy, then you should be accurate. When the shadow minister was in one of my colleagues' electorates, the Labor Party sent around a little brochure. It repeats this crazy line that people will have to sell their homes. The Labor Party knows that that is not the case. The Labor Party knows that this is designed to scare people.I say to the shadow minister that, after yesterday's question time, it is quite clear that the media in this country have finally woken up. They do not want to be party to this sort of thing any more. The interesting thing is: do you know what Mr Sattler did after that one call? He stopped calls. He did not take another call because he knew that this issue is coming to an end; that there is a requirement for responsible discussion and long-term thinking in relation to the policy on this issue. The only way that we can cater for the needs of the elderly in this country is to pursue the path that I am talking about, the path that my colleagues in the chamber have been talking about. We have to make sure that, as we develop a national strategy for ageing, it possesses the necessary requirements for long-term policy. We have to make sure that it has equity, that it is fair and that it allows people a clear choice on their mode of care. We have to make sure that, as we develop a compact of care for the future, all people's needs are taken into account. (Time expired)15:59:00851Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—Today seems to be a day of concessions for the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith). He has indicated that the Aged Care Amendment Bill 1998 , which he will introduce into the House later, will be about making concessions. Finally, after the shadow minister has repeatedly attempted to get the minister to answer the questions that she has put to him, today we have some concessions in return for answers previously put. Yesterday in the House, the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) asked the Minister for Family Services the following question: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?That was a simple question. All it needed was a simple, straightforward answer, but what the minister said was: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. Today, in debate on this MPI, we have a concession from the Minister for Family Services. His explanation is that—as he stated yesterday—these extra daily fees are paid to nursing homes. They are paid over the counter and that goes to people's needs, but the concession is that the payment of those extra daily fees paid to the people at the nursing home then goes to change the levels of a person's contributions.That is where the clawback is; that is where the money goes back to the federal government: the level of contributions is changed. The person in the nursing home with a changed level of contribution is a direct outcome of the daily fees. That is where we have the minister's first concession of the day. We will have other concessions later, but that is a matter for debate on the bill. In the MPI before us, in particular, is the ongoing concern amongst older Australians created by the government's policies, particularly in the area of aged care. I refer to an article in the Weekend Australian of Saturday, 31 August 1996, when we had a previous minister for family matters.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Who was it?LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—Can we remember? Is it now the minister for Pru Goward, possibly? I am not sure. The article in the Australian has the heading `Confusion prevails in aged-care system.' That was on 31 August 1996. Has anything changed? The answer is no. Under this new minister, who was brought in to take over the shambles that was created by the previous minister—at the behest of the Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong (Mr Howard)—the shambles that was created in public policy in relation to nursing homes has quietened down over the last few months. But, Minister, let me tell you, when you reintroduce that bill into the House tonight, a bill which has already passed through this House, the quiet that you have heard in relation to this matter for some months will be blown away on the wind.This issue is vital and important to the older people of Australia. They know that the Labor Party way of providing for aged care over the period from 1983 until 1996 was utterly different from the mean-spirited and nasty approach of the member for Bennelong and his sideshow alley of a government. They know that it was possible to have a system with three principal elements in aged care. People could remain at home and have home and community care provided to them. They were better off in their own homes.They knew that if they became frail to a point where they could no longer be taken care of in their own home, under Labor they had a real choice. They had a choice to go into hostels; not into a contracted, almost minuscule and non-existent program that was there prior to the Labor period, but into a hostel program that grew in terms of real funding by 15 per cent a year, year on year, throughout Labor's period of office.When the Minister for Family Services waved that graph before us indicating a downturn in funding for nursing homes over the period of Labor government, he forgot—deliberately of course—to mention that there is a massive corollary to that. The corollary is a 15 per cent a year, year on year, increase in real funding to people in hostels to give them a real choice and a massive increase in funding for home and community care, so that the vast majority of those people who would not go into nursing homes—96 per cent of the aged population of Australia—had better choices open to them.We now have a government which, from March 1996 on, has been hell-bent on belting the daylights out of the aged community in Australia. We know what they intended to do even before they started their legislative process, because their minions—those under their direct orders, those who put together their great yellow book of instruction—the National Commission of Audit, had some suggestions for the government. It said that the government should urgently implement measures to reduce the potential for longer term aged related funding increases. Haven't they taken that to heart!The second part of it was that, failing that, they should make allowances now in budget figuring to provide them. I can report to the House that they have not done the second, but they have certainly done the first. They will reduce the potential for longer term aged funding because they are going to make the people who use those services, people in dire need, people in a position where they are forced to go into a nursing home because of ill-health, suffer.The second point they made was that the government should take action now to change expectations of reliance on government assistance.XS4LAWRENCEDr Lawrence—They've certainly done that.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTON—The member for Fremantle is absolutely correct: they have changed the expectation of reliance on government assistance. They will not have any expectation left by the time that lot over there have finished with them. How should they do that? By reducing aged and health related outlays, and they have been eminently successful in that. They have cut outlays in those areas.Initially, they were going to do it for a year. The member for Bennelong, cross his heart and hope to die, was going to stand by the fact that they were going to charge accommodation bonds. Were those accommodation bonds a core promise? I am not sure. I do not think he really let this out prior to the election. He was not going to make this a promise prior to the election. This is one that he whacked on the aged community after this government came to power. This is one that popped up out of the member for Bennelong's head, and one that he had been keeping back, waiting to put it into action in the National Commission of Audit report and in the legislation previously brought before this House.The accommodation bonds saga and the shambles associated with it created, in 1996, massive confusion in the aged community. It also created massive confusion in the coalition government; hardly any of them understood it. The worst indication and the worst instance of that was the former Minister for Family Services, Ms Moylan, who is now the minister for Pru Goward—or whatever else. She had no comprehension whatsoever of what she was bringing forward in the budget—not a clue. Now we have the member for Bass, the Minister for Family Services, who at least pretends to have some clues about what he is doing to actually reshape the shambles that he has inherited. The further point that the Commission of Audit made was this:. . . while maintaining universal access to nursing homes for those in need—as of course defined by this government—change funding arrangements so that those able to contribute more towards their own care, do so.They have done that in spades. They tried to do it with accommodation bonds and, in the end, they have had to put that off. Tonight we will hear about the second concession that this minister is going to make today. (Time expired)16:09:00853Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—I guess that most people in this House would consider that the issues of aged care and aged people in Australia are very important. I do, and I share their views. The matter of public importance today is a very important one to be discussed, but I think it should be discussed on the facts rather than as a wish-list, as the opposition has done. The matter of public importance says:The ongoing concern amongst older Australians created by the Government's policies, particularly in the area of aged care.I would like to address the substance of those particular issues. There is a great need for us to look at policies with some generational responsibility when it comes to these particular demographics, because we know that by the year 2031 in Australia the aged demographic of 65-plus will in fact double. For those aged 80-plus, that demographic over 10 years—from 1991 to the year 2001, which is only 30 months away—will in fact increase by 49 per cent. Costs in this area have also increased by some 41 per cent since 1987. Over the 13 years that the previous speakers were in government—and we must remember that they were in government for 13 years—they had the opportunity to address this vital area, yet nursing home capital and quality deteriorated an awful lot.Until we came into government some 40 per cent of residents in nursing home care had to share their bedrooms with four or more people. Not many people in this place would agree with that. Yet they, on that side of politics, allowed that to happen.I was very interested to listen to both the opposition speakers—the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) and the member for Blaxland (Mr Hatton)—and I was prepared to take a lot of copious notes about their debate. In fact, I did not even fill up half a page for either one of them. The member for Jagajaga was talking about funding cutbacks and clawing back of taxation increases. She identifies a problem there and, by implication, realises that the Labor Party caused the problem, but she sees no solutions or answers to that problem. She said that we were going around misleading Australia all through 1997. That is not the truth. The truth is that for 13 years, whilst the Labor Party were in power, they misled the aged population of Australia. Who could forget that in the 1993 election campaign the then Treasurer, one John Dawkins, the former member for Fremantle, said:After we are re-elected, no pensioner would be in the taxation system.On 18 March—five days after the 13 March election—he said: I feel no obligation to meet that promise to take the pensioners out of the tax system.So they come in here bleating about misleading the Australian people when in fact they were the great misleaders of the Australian people for the 13 years prior to 1996.The member for Jagajaga had not much substance in her debate. She says she cares for the aged population of Australia. Well, she is more into scaring than caring. I have some advice here from a guy called Terry Healy, the CEO of one of the larger aged care organisations in Adelaide, who wrote to Ms Macklin. He said:You have been very successful in creating unnecessary—I repeat `unnecessary'—concern amongst the elderly and their families. It is obvious from your statements that you have either a limited understanding of the industry on which you are commenting or, as I suspect is more probable, you are choosing to bend the information for political gain.This is someone from within the industry commenting on the shadow minister who has just stood up here and criticised us. They had 13 years to do something about this issue. They did nothing. We are trying to do some thing and they are criticising us and putting through a scare campaign.The shadow minister also likes to quote Mr Francis Sullivan from the Australian Catholic Health Care Association. On the ABC national radio program World Today, at 12.30 p.m. on 4 February 1998, he was asked whether people would have to sell their homes. He said:Well, obviously the change in government policy means that people are not going to be selling their homes to go into a nursing home.The shadow minister spent 15 minutes not talking about older Australians but putting a scare campaign through this parliament that people will have to sell their family homes, yet here is someone, again in the industry, saying they do not have to. So who do we believe: people in the industry or those in the party that deceived us for 13 years when they were in government?Let me talk about the member for Blaxland. Who can remember the former member for Blaxland? I think the current member outshines the former member, who was, as we remember, the former Prime Minister. The member for Blaxland said that some huge funds of money were going into hostel care whilst they were in government. That is true. But what happened to nursing home care? They completely ignored it and they lowered funding by 75 per cent.The member for Blaxland also said that all the coalition are interested in is belting the aged. Nothing could be further from the truth because we are a party that has policies for all Australians. We focus on all Australians. For instance, we as a party were the first in Australia to align the pension rate to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Last Friday we made an announcement that we were increasing the pension rate to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The Labor Party talked about it, but they did nothing about it. We did that last Friday.We are giving a tax rebate for self-funded retirees. The Labor Party do not want to have self-funded retirees in Australia. They ignored them for so long. They taxed them almost out of existence. We are giving them a tax rebate. We are also giving them a health insurance rebate. We have also increased the domiciliary nursing care benefit. They never did. We are giving savings benefits to older Australians. We are giving benefits to farm families. We are giving seniors access to the Commonwealth seniors card. We have given capital gains tax relief for self-funded retirees and cut provisional tax rates as well. These are things that the coalition are supplying to older Australians because we care. And those opposite scare. They scare older Australians. They are scaring some of the most vulnerable people in this country. They are scaring; we are acting. We promised all that for Australians and now we are responding.The previous administration left some legacies, and the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) showed some graphs before. The Labor Party failed the nursing home sector. Capital funding for nursing homes was decreased by 75 per cent. They even commissioned the Gregory report, which identified nursing homes as one of the significant issues they should be addressing, but they never, ever addressed it. They never did; we did. They abandoned rural constituencies as well. We in fact are addressing them.Under the Labor administration, for instance, 13 per cent of nursing homes did not meet fire standards. These are aged people. They are people we should all be caring about, but 13 per cent of nursing homes did not meet fire standards under a Labor administration. Eleven per cent of nursing homes did not meet necessary health guidelines—under a Labor administration. Design and building codes were not met in 75 per cent of nursing homes, and 51 per cent of nursing home residents lived in wards with three or more beds. Here is their funding graph. You notice up here is 1990-91 and down here is 1995-96.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Who did you copy that off?3V5Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS—All they can do is say, `Who did you copy that off? Where did you get that information? It wasn't us. We had 13 years. We were going to address it in our 14th year. That is when we were going to do something about nursing homes. We handled the hostels but nursing homes were too hard.' The Labor Party have nothing. They have scare campaigns and all they want to do is increase taxes.Alannah MacTiernan from the Labor Party in Western Australia recommended at your national conference the reintroduction of death taxes. That is what you people over there are after—increasing death taxes. You do not care about older Australians, generational responsibilities or mutual obligations. You do not care about any of that. You are only into scaring some of the most vulnerable people in our country who have served this country well. All you want to do is create a scare campaign. The Labor Party will do whatever it takes. They want the votes. They will scare as much as they can. They will do whatever it takes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The discussion is concluded.Bills855r269855Bill presented by Mr Speaker, and read a first time.855855Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill I have just presented provides, for the first time, for the establishment and administration of a separate Parliamentary Service to support the operations of the houses of the Australian parliament. The staff at present providing the parliament with its support services operate under administrative and staffing structures established by the Public Service Act 1922; however, it has been decided that the parliamentary administration should have its own legislation which recognises and mandates that the primary obligation of Parliamentary Service staff is to serve the parliament as a whole.The bill is identical to the bill that was passed by the House on 30 October 1997. It had been introduced into the House on 23 October 1997 and was amended following the report of the then Joint Committee of Public Accounts into the Public Service Bill 1997. The Senate returned the Public Service legis lation and the Parliamentary Service Bill with amendments to which the House disagreed, and the three bills were laid aside on 5 December 1997. As the government has decided that the Public Service legislation, which establishes a complementary framework, should be reintroduced, it is desirable that the bills be considered together. Otherwise, the Parliamentary Service could become isolated, and left remaining under existing legislation which is recognised by all sides of the parliament to be outdated.The Parliamentary Service Bill follows as much as possible the philosophy, content and structure of the Public Service Bill 1997, which changes significantly the structure of public service employment, with certain modifications necessary to ensure the independence of the parliament from executive government. It establishes an employment framework which mirrors that proposed for the Australian Public Service generally and provides specifically for the reciprocal mobility of staff between the two services without loss of accrued entitlements. The ability of staff to move freely and unfettered is essential to the health and strength of both services.There are significant differences between the parliamentary and public service bills which recognise that staff in parliamentary departments serve the houses of the parliament. That distinction is reflected in the first object of the bill, which is to establish an apolitical Parliamentary Service that is efficient and effective in serving the Parliament. The Parliamentary Service Bill contains a statement of Parliamentary Service values and a code of conduct, provides for the appointment of a Parliamentary Service Commissioner, makes specific reference to the offices of Clerk of the Senate and Clerk of the House of Representatives, and provides for appointments to those offices. Tenure as Clerk of either House will be for one 10-year period. The bill also stipulates conditions for earlier termination of those appointments. Occupants of the office may retire earlier once they attain the age of 55 years. Secretaries, other than Clerks, are to be appointed by the Speaker and the President for five-year terms with termination arrangements similar to those applying to secretaries of executive departments. There are transitional arrangements to ensure the continuation in office of current heads of parliamentary departments.In broad terms, the Presiding Officers will have the same employment powers as ministers under the Public Service Bill with advice from the Parliamentary Service Commissioner. Consistent with the need to preserve the independence of the Clerks as impartial advisers, the Clerks of the House of Representatives and of the Senate are not to be subject to direction from the Presiding Officers in relation to the nature of their advice provided with respect to either house, to members or to committees. Secretaries to parliamentary departments, including the Clerks, cannot be directed in relation to the exercise of their powers in respect of specific individuals. The Presiding Officers will have the power to give secretaries to parliamentary departments, including the Clerks, general directions relating to the management and leadership of the Parliamentary Service.The bill also creates the new office of Parliamentary Service Commissioner with a role similar to that of the Public Service Commissioner. The Parliamentary Service Commissioner will have the task of advising the Presiding Officers with respect to the management practices and policies of the Parliamentary Service and, if requested by the relevant Presiding Officer, of investigating and reporting on specific issues.While the bill provides specifically that the Parliamentary Service Commissioner is to be appointed separately and independently by the Presiding Officers, it is expected that normally the same person would fill the office of both the Parliamentary Service Commissioner and the Public Service Commissioner. This would assist in ensuring overall comparability and consistency between the two services. However, the bill specifically provides that the commissioner cannot be subject to direction by executive government in relation to the Parliamentary Service. Secretaries to parliamentary departments, including the two Clerks, are to have the same employment powers as those proposed for departmental secretaries in the Australian Public Service.As mentioned earlier, the bill incorporates a legally enforceable code of conduct and a statement of Parliamentary Service values. These values reflect the fact that staff serve the houses but, in other respects, mirror those of the Public Service Bill, with a parallel reference to the requirement that employment decisions in the Parliamentary Service be based on merit.In summary, this bill gives legislative effect to the decision that the parliamentary administration should not continue to be covered by the standard Australian Public Service Act. It establishes a statutory framework and administrative arrangements broadly consistent with those for the Public Service, while incorporating the changes necessary to accommodate the unique circumstances of serving the houses. It provides the houses with a set of arrangements which will allow them to continue to attract and provide a career for those staff who will be equipped to deliver the high level of service the houses currently enjoy. I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Ms Macklin) adjourned.Committees857857857857Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 23 March 1998. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 23 March 1998Pursuant to sessional order 28D, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 23 March 1998. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list. COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION—STANDING COMMITTEE: Interim report on Reserve Bank of Australia's annual report for 1996-97.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 20 minutes.Speech time limits—First 2 Members speaking—10 minutes each.Other Members—5 minutes each.2 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on Defence Sub-Committee visit to Sydney Harbour Foreshores Defence properties, 14 November 1998.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 15 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mrs Crosio to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the establishment and administration of a scheme to guarantee the payment of wages and certain other liabilities owed to employees in the event of employer insolvency, and for related purposes. (Notice given 5 March 1998. )2Mr Tony Smith to move—That the House:(1) condemns the practice of child labour and calls on governments around the world to do all in their power to outlaw this evil practice; and(2) calls on governments and the private sector to boycott products from countries that use children in this shameful way. (Notice given 17 November 1997. )Time allotted—private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3Mr McClelland to move— That this House:(1) notes that there exists significant scientific controversy as to the effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile phone towers;(2) resolves that current legislation should be amended to require that mobile phone towers not be installed within a radius of 300 metres from schools and playgrounds;(3) resolves that the telecommunications industry be levied to raise funds to conduct research into the health and safety aspects of electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile telephone towers; and(4) calls for a review of Australian standard AS2772 which relates to electromagnetic radiation emissions. (Notice given 25 November 1997. )Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Government Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4Mr Eoin Cameron to move—That the House:(1) acknowledges the contribution of palliative care to the proper treatment of patients with a terminal illness;(2) recognises the work of health professionals and volunteers in the field of palliative care and commends those workers for their commitment to patients, the compassion with which they undertake their work and the commitment they have to palliative care as a proper treatment of patients with a terminal illness;(3) acknowledges the benefits to patients, families and health care providers of palliative care;(4) further recognises the benefits to both patients and families of palliative care provided to patients in their home rather than at medical institutions;(5) urges the Government to continue the provision of funds to palliative care with a view to increasing funding to palliative care provided at home in particular; and(6) implores the Government to investigate the merit of encouraging the provision of palliative care at the patient's home, and the funding for this, in view of the benefits for both the patient and their family as well as the Government. (Notice given 1 December 1997 .) Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.85885810000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that the Senate has referred the following matter to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties for inquiry and report by 25 May 1998:The advantages and/or disadvantages for Australia arising from the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) currently being negotiated by the Australian government at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, with particular reference to:(a) the ability of countries to impose conditions on foreign investment;(b) the ability of countries to establish limits on foreign investment;(c) the implications arising from the `roll back' and `standstill' provisions;(d) the ability of countries to pursue social, environmental, labour, cultural, human rights and indigenous protections and the impacts for each of these sectors resulting from foreign investment regimes under the MAI;(e) any implications for Australia's national debt and current account deficit of the growth in foreign investment the MAI is expected to bring;(f) the MAI's dispute handling procedures;(g) the issue of the constitutionality of the MAI for Australia;(h) the impact on agricultural and manufacturing sectors;(i) the impact on state, territory and local governments; and(j) the impact on Australian investors seeking to invest overseas.Committees858Motion (by Mr Andrew) agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for 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 Taxation Laws (Technical Amendments) Bill 1997 Bills859R377859Debate resumed from 4 December 1997, on motion by Mr Somlyay:That the bill be now read a second time.16:27:00859McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997 has some interesting history at both a federal level and a territory level, and they both have their origins in what seems to be a pattern of fundamental Liberal Party opposition to the leasehold system in the ACT. Ever since I have been here in Canberra, which is nearly 17 years, particularly ever since I have been here in the parliament, this has been a recurrent theme.This matter first came up in the inquiry which led to what was called the Langmore report in 1988—one of four inquiries into the planning and land management system and, in particular, into the leasehold system over the last 20 or so years, none of which recommended moving to perpetual leasehold, or what we have here of effective perpetual leasehold because we are moving from 99-year leases to 999-year leases.Moving to a 999-year lease term is how to destroy the leasehold system while pretending you have not. There is that continuing federal history whereby the minority Liberal and National Party signatories to the report to which I just referred, colloquially known as the Langmore report, were fundamentally opposed to the leasehold system. Before the election here in the territory, the then Deputy Chief Minister—and he may be so again soon—Mr Gary Humphries, was making his party's intention clear to move towards 999-year leases, if they were returned to office. They made a request of their federal colleagues to facilitate that, and this is the legislation which responds to that request.It breaches, in my view, the spirit of one of the key elements of the constitutional arrangements around the establishment of the national capital. The principle of Commonwealth ownership of land in the Australian Capital Territory is expressed in section 125 of the constitution, which states in part:. . . the seat of Government of the Commonwealth shall be determined by the Parliament, and shall be within territory . . . and shall be vested in and belong to the Commonwealth . . . That is the section of the constitution which preserves Commonwealth ownership of the land and which has always been taken as underpinning the leasehold system. This legislation is not technically in breach of that, and I do not allege it is. We do not want to get into all of that; that is not true. It technically conforms with it, but it just rips it up. The leasehold system cannot achieve its purposes under a 999-year lease system.We currently, as those members who are interested would know, have a leasehold system based on four types of leases, not all of which are going to be equally affected by this particular proposal. In particular, we have that which is of most concern to the citizens of Canberra in their day-to-day lives: residential leases. These leases are not effectively changed in circumstance by this legislation, because although they can now be only for up to 99 years, and most are for that period, they may be automatically renewed for a further 99 years without charge.With a slightly different process, but like everywhere else, of course, if the government requires the land for a public purpose then certain matters to do with resumption of the land can take place. While the process by which that is undertaken is different here as a result of the leasehold system, there is nothing unique about that. That happens under the freehold system under different arrange ments, but governments can always acquire land for a public purpose. It is true that you need to make that acknowledgment of difference, but nothing in the lives of ordinary Canberrans will be changed by this. Their security in their residential leases is unqualified at the moment and will continue to be unqualified under this lease.We have commercial, industrial and community leases which may also be for up to 99 years. You can make an application for renewal. On 8 January this year, the Chief Minister announced that commercial leases which were granted for less than 99 years could be converted to 99 years on the payment of $200, provided that the lease purpose remained the same. We do not want to get into the complication of changing lease purpose clauses here; that is not to do with the extension of the duration of the lease, although I want to say something about lease purpose clauses and their significance during the course of these remarks. But we now have the capacity for all commercial leases in existence at the moment to be extended to 99 years on the payment of $200. That is, essentially, an administrative fee. Existing businesses in the ACT are not influenced by this legislation because this legislation relates to new leases—leases after the passage of the legislation.If there is a fundamental commercial benefit to be had from the extension of this lease—and I have to say I think that is an illusion that some people hold and believe is significant for the development of Canberra, so I do not want to denigrate it; I want to take it seriously and I will refer to it during the course of my remarks—then it is a benefit that will flow disproportionately to new businesses in Canberra vis-a-vis existing operating businesses who will not have the benefit unless they seek to have their leases handed in and reissued. There are other sorts of leases that are important, in their way, within the ACT, to do with rural leases and special leases which are less than market value—for example, for churches or other such special purposes. I do not think, for the purposes of this legislation, that they are central to our concerns.The real argument is whether in some way changing the nature of the leasehold system would enable commercial, industrial and community leases, and particularly the commercial and industrial leases, to become much more effective vehicles as an industrial incentive and lead to a stronger growth in the ACT economy. I have to say that it is a pleasant change to have anything suggested by this government that talks about stronger growth in the ACT economy. That is a welcome change. Nothing up until now has indicated that, and we have had some appalling problems in terms of economic development in the Australian Capital Territory as a result of the policies of this government. Many people have lost their jobs. Many small business people have lost their businesses and their savings. Many people have seen their lives, their hopes and their aspirations destroyed. It is not something to take lightly, to say, `Here is a proposal for which it is claimed there is significant economic benefit. The economy will be enhanced and the private sector will be more likely to invest in the ACT as a consequence of this move from 99-year to 999-year maximum leases.'My view is, as I say, that the downside—the losses that will be suffered as a consequence of the change—is real and the gains are illusory. You have to remember that this is a system that, as I said earlier, has been reviewed four times: in 1976, in 1983, in 1988, which is the review to which I particularly referred, and in 1995. Some of those reviews quite particularly looked at it from an economic point of view; some of them had the economic aspect as an ancillary to their principal review that looked at issues of planning, land management and leasehold here in the Australian Capital Territory; but all of them, in some way or another, had a focus on the future of the leasehold system. None of those reviews, after examining these matters, came to the conclusion that a move of the sort recommended here is necessary. In fact, none of them even came to the view that it was desirable. To the contrary, they have all argued that the capacity to have a renewable term—a specified term—is an important element of the land management, property development and economic development arrangements of the Australian Capital Territory.The land tenure inquiry of 1976 favoured perpetual leasehold for home owners but it did not recommend that commercial leases should be of indefinite duration. It recommended that they should be for fixed terms. The Whyte report in 1983 rejected perpetual leasehold as unnecessary, unjustified and inconsistent with the Commonwealth ownership of land and that perpetual leasehold had the capacity to weaken the leasehold system and the effectiveness of the lease purpose clause as a planning tool. Hear, hear, I say.The Langmore report of 1988 also rejected leases in perpetuity as being fraught with contractual difficulties and weakening the government's control over the use of land. You will not be surprised that I agreed with that. I was a signatory to that report, so it is hardly surprising that I agreed with its conclusions. The Stein report of 1995, the most recent report and in many ways a controversial report—but I do not think at the time particularly controversial with regard to recommendations in this matter—similarly rejected conversion to a system of leases in perpetuity or freehold because of the primacy of lease purpose clauses in controlling planning and development in the ACT.None of the inquiries commissioned by territory and federal governments of different political persuasions, Labor and Liberal—both pre-self-government and since self-government—have suggested, concluded or recommended that the changes that are in this legislation should be undertaken. No independent study has supported this proposal—not one. But we continually see the proposal recur. Every time it is examined by any independent body it is rejected.People might think the Langmore report was not an independent inquiry; that it was an inquiry of members of parliament, of partisans. But it did have before it a wide array of experts who reported to it, presented evidence to it and made recommendations before it. As I say, I have a vested interest in that. I was a participant in that committee and a signatory to the majority report, which I still support. You could say that that committee consisted of politically partisan members—the majority were Labor Party members and they signed up to that proposal—and just put that to one side, although I think the balance of argument in the report is strong.The other three inquiries do not have that flavour. They are not reports by the Labor Party. They are not reports by radicals seeking to undermine the capitalist system of the ACT. They are orthodox, mainstream, Australian, academic, economic, legal, public service reviewers, who say unanimously, `Don't do this.' Nevertheless, the drum beat in the background from then Liberal oppositions, federally and in the territory, and now governments, federally and in the territory, is to continue inexorably to move in this direction. This legislation is its first tangible outcome. The only real possible justification for it would be if it is impossible to have successful economic development on a leasehold system.I have to say that it is quite a long time since I did a large amount of work on this because, frankly, I thought the issue was dead and buried. It raised its head about 10 years ago. It had been looked at and rejected and everybody seemed to walk away from it. As I say, the drum beat in the background continued to be heard and has now come to the forefront.I am very grateful to acknowledge the assistance of the Parliamentary Library in their assessment of this legislation. They went back to some speculation and commentary around the time that Liberal's Deputy Chief Minister, Mr Humphries, first floated this idea and sought to have the federal government take the initiative, which they took in introducing this legislation which we are now debating. The Library did a bit of research about comments at the time and I did a bit of research about comments before. Most of those, as I say, are reflected in the four major inquiries.The Stein report said that there is no evidence that leasehold tenure inhibits investment in the ACT. The report said that no-one has been able to give the board any details of any investment which did not take place in the territory as a sole consequence of the leasehold system. I accept that is a hard brief, because it is always hard to prove what did not happen. But often there are people who come forward saying, `We wanted to make an investment decision;' there is speculation about potential investments—not just in the ACT (it happens in all regions but for the purpose of this debate we are talking about the ACT), it gets in the media, there is a bit of discussion and the proposal falls over. And then we get into the blame allocation business—`This would have happened if it were not for (a), (b), (c), (d) or (e).' That is nothing unique. It happens all the time. Yet with all that, no-one was able to say, `Here is the development that would have happened were it not for the leasehold system.'The head of the urban research program at the Australian National University is quoted as saying that it is nonsense to suggest that the leasehold system affected investment. That is just his opinion. He is entitled to say it. Does it have any special weight? Perhaps not. But he then went on to say that Hong Kong, Stockholm, Amsterdam and Singapore are among the cities which operated with leasehold systems.I assume that Professor Troy is correct. I suppose if he has headed the urban research program at the ANU it is likely he would know whether Hong Kong, Stockholm, Amsterdam and Singapore had leasehold systems, and no-one I know has challenged it. You do not need to be Professor of Urban Research at the ANU to know that those four cities have done all right. In fact, most people would say that economically they might have done better than a few cities operating on other land management systems.Nobody could logically argue that they have succeeded because of the leasehold system, but I think it is fair to say they have not been kneecapped by the system. They have not been in the circumstance where they could not meet reasonable economic growth targets. Hong Kong, Stockholm, Amsterdam and Singapore are not renowned in the world as cities in economic decline, failing to perform equally with those thriving metropolises with freehold systems.Professor Neutze, who is well known to anybody who has been involved in planning issues in the ACT at any time in the last 20 years but certainly in the last decade, has written:It is true that investors will pay somewhat less for leasehold than for freehold land because they are buying lesser rights—I interpolate: slight lesser rights; nevertheless, that is reflected in what they will pay—but that does not reduce the rate of return on their investments. The strongest proponents of conversion to freehold are those who purchased leases and want to be given the additional rights that attach to freehold tenure. Once everyone has freehold tenure, the rate of return from investment in the ACT would be expected to be about the same as elsewhere in Australia.There are people who would prefer to be able to have leases for longer than 99 years, particularly those in the property development business. That is a legitimate aspiration. It is not that those people are committing a heinous crime by having that view. It is an intelligent analysis by them of what they see as their self-interest. They are entitled to do that. I do not think they are correct in assessing their self-interest. I do not think it is a correct assessment, but I do not attack them for having that view. I have had a lot of discussions with some of them and I regard some of them as my friends, but I do not agree with them. Even if I did agree with them, I do not think their argument would outweigh the alternative weight of evidence.The evidence that it will cause economic damage is unproven. In fact, it is contradicted by the experience in the ACT, where overall economic growth, including private sector economic growth, has not been too bad in the last 10 or 20 years—that is, unless you want to take the two years of the Howard government and say that economic growth has been pretty terrible here and the private sector is taking a beating. You would be stretching a pretty long bow to say that that was caused by the leasehold system. Whatever else you might say, I do not think that would be the argument that even the property developers around town would use. Their criticisms have been directed somewhere else.In economic growth in the ACT, the key issue is not duration. Why do we need a change beyond 99 years particularly when residential leases are renewable and existing business leases are extendable to 99 years and this will apply only to new properties? If people talk to you about the constraints of the leasehold system—and other than that slight diminution of rights which Professor Neutze talks about and which logically in a market system is going to be reflected in the price (and it is not as if people buying leasehold don't know what they are buying)—and say that it is not as valuable to them as freehold, the logical consequence is that that is reflected in the price they pay and, therefore, should not affect the rate of return. That is the economics of the circumstance.It might be uncomfortable because they would like to assert that they want to achieve the outcome of freehold or virtual freehold—which is leasehold in perpetuity; the 999-year lease—but the economics do not stack up like that. The market system does not work like that. In a free market the price is determined by what people are prepared to pay on the basis of their assessment of the value of the rights they are buying. They have known since 1927 that they are buying leasehold. When people have bought, they have paid a price that they thought was fair and a lot have made a decent return.What people complain to me about (and I do not agree with them) is not that they cannot get a decent rate of return because they have only got security of tenure for 99 years—there is no business in Australia that has failed because its security of tenure was only 99 years—but about the lease purpose clause, the constraints of that clause, the way it will be changed and the betterment tax that might apply if it were changed. I do not share their criticism of that. Even if you do, this legislation does not change that, and nor should it. If there is a problem in the leasehold system, it is not affected by this legislation.It is legislation which has no benefit to existing business. It operates properly. I agree with the government that, if you are going to make this change, you should do it in the way this legislation does. In this legislation the amendment to item 1 is to omit 99 years and substitute 999 years. In terms of application the legislation states:The amendment made by item 1 applies to estates granted on or after the commencement of this Act.I agree with that. If you are going to do it, that is the way to do it. My view is that it should not be done at all. What that means is that there is no benefit to the existing businesses operating on current leases.In my view, the only remaining argument that might be raised about why the federal parliament should pass this law is that in some way it goes to the sovereignty of the ACT—the right of the ACT government to legislate in these matters rather than having the federal government determine them.I have two points to make about that. This was an issue that was of some controversy during what became known as the euthanasia debate. I was opposed to the Andrews bill, but I made it clear at the time that it was not on the basis of my concern about the sovereignty of the ACT; it was because I disagreed with the policy reflected in it. I said at the time that if it appeared that the ACT government was proposing to introduce capital punishment and somebody here introduced legislation to stop it, I would vote for that legislation on the basis of my view about the policy of the question, because it is a proper matter for the federal parliament and it is within our power.But this is a more clear-cut case. Strong advocate as I am of the interests of the Australian Capital Territory and of its legitimate independent interests as a self-governing territory, the nature of land title in the Australian Capital Territory is, fundamentally, a national question. We are talking about the nature of the leases, the nature of the operating instruments, the legislative instruments which underpin the ownership of land in the national capital, including national land, and we are talking about an issue that is fundamental to the constitutional compact and the constitution itself. My argument is not, as I say, that this proposal is in breach of the constitution. It is clearly in conformity, although I think it is clearly in breach of the spirit of the constitution. My argument against this legislation is on its merits—the way it undermines both the symbolic and the substantive planning benefits of the leasehold system without the economic benefits that would justify such a change.I do not believe the ACT sovereignty argument holds water because we are dealing here with a genuinely national issue. All Australians have an interest in the way in which land in the national capital is owned. If that national interest were going to adversely affect the nature of suburban residential leases in Tuggeranong, Belconnen, Gungahlin and the newly emerging areas far from the national land here in the centre of Canberra, it might be an interesting argument to say that those people have rights—which they do. Their rights should not be less than those of people in adjoining areas just by virtue of the coincidence that they are on this side of the boundary and not the other. Those residential leases are secure and renewable and they are in no jeopardy. No constituent of mine has ever come to see me in 10 years saying, `As a citizen of the ACT, I am significantly disadvantaged because I have leasehold only for as long as I want it.' That does not undermine anybody's rights and it is not changed by this piece of legislation.It is a source of great pride for many Canberra people that they live in the national capital, and it is a source of some benefit to us all, as well as, sometimes, some cost. But a consequence of it is that we live in a leasehold-based territory. We all came here in that knowledge, live here in that knowledge and people, in future, will come here in that knowledge.If this legislation is passed, there is no guarantee that the change that it facilitates will take place. There is no clear majority of the ACT Legislative Assembly to support ACT legislation to implement what is made possible by this legislation. That is a matter for others to argue. My Labor colleagues in the ACT might choose, if this is allowed, to move to some form of compromise. I do not know. That has not been the indication until now but there has been a recent election. New people have been elected; they are entitled to express their view. I do not want to cut across their right to do that. I simply want to say that, until now, this has merely been the Liberal Party view. This bill will undermine the leasehold system; it destroys the leasehold system and I think the leasehold system has served Australia and the national capital well. Accordingly, on behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we will continue to oppose this legislation.16:57:00864Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—It was an interesting and fascinating discourse by the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) as he outlined his not-too-passionate opposition to the principle of giving people longer term leaseholds in the ACT. The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997 is a fulfilment and a delivery of the federal coalition policy put before the Australian people in 1996. It delivers a promise that we made and, in that sense, I thank the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government (Mr Somlyay), who is at the table, for bringing it into the House so that the coalition can deliver yet another coalition promise to the Australian people.It is legislation which has been requested by the Chief Minister of the ACT and is supported by very many people in the ACT—and, I acknowledge, as the member for Canberra has said, is also opposed by certain people in the ACT. There has been some criticism in the media of the proposal as well, and I acknowledge that, too.When I was asked to speak on this bill, there was a sense of deja vu in a way because, as a former state minister for planning and local government, I have had a long-term interest in the system of land management and planning. Also, as a lawyer, I have an interest in the claims by academics and others that the land tenure system can be one of the dynamics in respect of effective land use planning.I would argue—and I think there is overwhelming evidence of this—that effective land use planning law achieves the objectives of a modern contemporary society very satisfactorily. Equally, I would argue that it is no longer a valid point of view—although I concede it was held by many eminent people and perhaps by some still to this day—that the only way you could have an effective land management planning system would be to control the titles to the land through a leasehold system rather than through a freehold system.With great respect to those who hold that view, I would suggest that in a contemporary or modern society that is not the case. It is certainly no longer the case and, quite frankly, there is no reason why a legislative assembly in the ACT or in a state or even a parliament cannot make effective planning laws and achieve a good planning outcome whether the land is freehold or leasehold.I notice that the argument put forward by the member for Canberra was that no case has been made out to support an extension of the available land leasehold system in the ACT. He also went beyond what I thought was a fairly moderate opposition to this bill by claiming that the extension of the right of the term of the lease from 99 years to a maximum of 999 years would, in some way, undermine the leasehold system. I would ask these questions: what are the outcomes of having a 99-year leasehold system of land in the ACT compared with having a lease tenure of 150 years or 125 years or 200 years, up to a maximum of 999 years? What are the outcomes and objectives of the people who would argue that the leasehold system cannot under any circumstances move beyond 99 years? What are the dangers that they see if it is 100 years, or 105 years for that matter, compared with the obvious implication of having a 99-year lease? I think really there is a bit of wind in the argument; there is not a lot of substance.There is another point I would like to make, again with respect to the member for Canberra. I know his love of the ACT is a genuine one and his commitment to the community is a genuine one, but he argued that we have done well enough in the ACT by having the leasehold system of 99 years. I think by inference he is saying, `Why try to fix it if it is not broken? We have done all right with a 99-year lease.' He says for that reason that you should not think about changing the tenure of the lease to a longer term. But that is not an argument at all. That is a fear or a phobia or a nightmare that some people might have when they go to bed at night when the lights are turned off—`My God, we have 99-year leases in the ACT and someone might change them to more than 99 years, and we are at risk because of that.' He did not make out a case to tell us what the risk was. He just said that the land tenure or leasehold system would be undermined, and I think destroyed.The other point I would make is that he said, `We have got on okay with 99 years; therefore, we should not have any more than 99 years available to us as a leasehold term.' I am proud of the fact that the ACT has developed as the national capital, even though I do not live here permanently. But one fact of life has to be recognised—and I think that was recognised by the ACT Chief Minister when the request was made to the Commonwealth government to deliver its coalition federal policy to extend the term of the lease—and that is that choice that other economies and urban communities in this country offer freehold tenures and that the ACT does not and cannot do that. It can offer at the moment only a maximum term of 99 years for a lease.If the member for Canberra is arguing that we are getting on all right and we should not change it, the point that I would like to put to him is: what about all the people who are thinking of setting up their homes, their businesses, their universities and whatever other activity they are contemplating in Australia in the future? In deciding where they are going to locate or relocate, they will obviously evaluate, amongst other things, things like the land tenure system, the choices that are available and the associated things with that.Of course it is true that the horizons for people in the ACT going into the next millennium should not be limited by some previous idea that 99 years was the maximum when this community clearly aspires to have some growth and new investment. It does want new growth and investment. It wants jobs for its young people. Why not? It is like any other community in the nation. Why should this community be held back by not being able to compete with the very competitive growing cities and towns and regions in this great country? They say to future investors and future residents, `Come and live with us. Come and work with us. Come and invest with us. We have a safe tenure system. We have a freehold system.' For goodness sake, why would you worry about a lease when you can have freehold title! I think even the member for Canberra knows in his heart and would acknowledge that, if you have freehold title, you do feel better. He might think it is illusory, but that has been acknowledged. It has even been acknowledged by the people who wrote the reports.I do not want to see people in the ACT held back. I want to be able to observe the ACT compete for economic growth and development and new investment without inhibitions and without being restricted by some artificial decision that you cannot have leasehold for longer than 99 years. There is no logic in saying that ought to be continued. The ACT Chief Minister's request to have the right to take it up to 999 years is a reasonable one because she obviously wants to see her vision for the ACT fulfilled and enhanced. She wants people here to have the opportunity to be able to compete with other urban communities and economic initiatives in other states which are trying to attract investment.With great respect to the member for Canberra, the fact that he is too close to the subject may have restricted his vision. Maybe he is just defending all of the four reports—one of which he said he was heavily involved in. In his own heart and mind, maybe he is unwittingly holding the ACT back by arguing this way, by arguing that you should not have an elected assembly in the ACT, by the people for the people with the right to make policy decisions which will enable it to grant leases up to 999 years. That is something he perhaps ought to weigh up in his mind as a representative of the people of the ACT.The other point I would make is I find it very hard to follow ACT politics, I must confess, and keep up with all the Commonwealth politics and all of the other things that we have to do, but I try to do that. I could not let the fact escape me that in the most recent election in this great nation of ours—that is, the ACT election—the Chief Minister has been re-elected. The member for Canberra could not deny that Kate Carnell has been very open and forthcoming about her vision for the ACT and her aspiration that the right to extend leases should be vested in the ACT assembly with enabling Commonwealth power. The people voted recently and it seems to me, from all the papers that I have read, that under this rather unusual voting system in the ACT Kate Carnell has won. She will be the Chief Minister. So isn't there a signal from the people in that regard?I also like to kick a tyre and take a straw vote. The best way to decide whether a policy is right or wrong is to go and ask the people. In the last couple of days since the minister was kind enough to ask me to join him in this debate, I have been asking ordinary people in the ACT what they think about the possibility of extending the leases to 999 years. Sometimes they have been a bit surprised that I have asked them. I have asked them whilst walking in the street—I like to go for a walk every day and I nod to people and talk to a couple—sitting in cafes and things like that. I have asked the staff who live here and love this community.I have not found anyone who has expressed any disquiet to me at all. I admit that I have not taken a scientific survey. I have not spoken to thousands or hundreds of people; I have spoken to perhaps 15 or 20 people. But it was a cross-section. I must tonight ask a taxi driver what he or she thinks. That usually is a pretty good way of finding out what people think. Taxi drivers will often give you a fairly good straw vote of what the position is.I think the bottom line of this legislation—and this is why I commend the minister for his initiative—is that it will give more choice and scope for the ACT economy and for the citizens of the ACT. It will enable them to compete more with the ever increasing competition from other communities in Australia to attract investment. It will certainly enhance the prospects of young people to get employment because, without new investment and people being attracted here, you know in your heart if you live in the ACT—and the member for Canberra knows in his heart—you will not be able to compete in the very competitive markets that we have in our nation and globally unless you have modern systems of management of your land that compete and give security of title and tenure systems that are very attractive.It is no good just saying, `Ninety-nine years is all right. No-one has told me they are unhappy with it. We have had investment and we have got on all right.' That is not good enough. You have to push the frontiers out. You should not just take second best. The ACT Chief Minister has been here a long time and she asked for this power to be given to the ACT through enactments, through administrations, through an elected assembly, and I think she is very wise in doing that.I would like to congratulate Kate Carnell on her achievements. She inherited a very difficult economic circumstance in the ACT. Her predecessor, a Labor Party Chief Minister, ran this ACT into enormous debt. She has tackled some very difficult issues. I have observed those and she has been rewarded by the ACT people with another term. It was very close, razor's edge, but nevertheless she has got another term. I am very pleased that this parliament has been given the opportunity to give to her in the first few days of her new term legislation, which I hope will pass speedily through this place and the Senate, that will give her the ammunition to get the ACT into the next millennium and to meet all the challenges that present themselves to us. It is good legislation. I wish it a speedy and very happy passage through the Senate as well as here.17:13:00867Dargavel, Steven, MPMr DARGAVELKP6FraserALP00—There are five principal points that I want to address in this debate, many of them going to questions which were posited by the previous speaker, the member for Indi (Mr Lieberman). The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997 changes in the most fundamental way planning and land management in the Australian Capital Territory. The amendments are unnecessary. The current system does not provide a disincentive for investment. Even if the changes were necessary, then there are better alternative mechanisms available to address the perceived difficulties that have been propounded by the advocates of this amendment legislation. The consequences of the amendment will be higher rates for residential leaseholders and reduced planning control for the ACT government. The consequences of reduced planning control for the ACT government are reasonably significant. I will go to those in my speech.The amendment's intentions, as the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) pointed out, have not been supported by independent studies. Whilst people enter this debate with some preconceptions that the system in the ACT looks a bit odd, there are some great strengths to it which have provided residents of the Australian Capital Territory some large benefit.I turn briefly to how the current system operates. Leasehold in the territory was introduced earlier this century, but there have been many amendments to it so that now, essentially, it operates in a substantially similar way to freehold title. It is not a unique system, as the member for Canberra pointed out. Similar systems are operating in Hong Kong, Stockholm, Amsterdam and Singapore. As the member for Canberra pointed out, it cannot be argued that any of those cities or areas suffer as a result of their land management regimes.In the ACT system, leases can be transferred through sale or inheritance. The ACT administration has control over land use, building approvals, the levying of taxes and rates and the right to acquire the lease upon payment of compensation. None of these things are dissimilar to the way land management operates in other places. The differences in the system are few and not normally of any consequence to the ACT leaseholder. The lease is let for a purpose which is specified in the lease purpose clause. I suppose we could say that that is similar to zoning mechanisms in New South Wales. A lease is for a specified period of time, that is true. However, there is no charge to the leaseholder to extend unless they are changing the specified purpose of the lease.A lease is subject to a payment of a premium. However, this is similar to that of a freehold land sale. A lease includes covenants and conditions with which the lessee is required to comply, but these conditions and covenants are not usually any different from those imposed in any other state or territory.The ACT government have the power to make changes that they claim this bill will make to Canberra's planning and land management. For example, they could opt for an automatic renewal of leases or waive the fees which are supposedly a disincentive for businesses establishing themselves here; that is, the ACT government have within their power mechanisms or options available to them to address the sorts of issues which they say they are concerned about in requesting this amendment legislation. Of course, they have not tried those mechanisms, even though they have certainly been actively canvassed locally.In my view, it is inappropriate for the ACT government to ask us to pass this bill because it risks the loss or the heritage of land planning and management in the ACT and the vision which Canberra's planners, under the direction of elected representatives of this country, have maintained for nearly a century. We are not just talking about the needs of the Australian Capital Territory. As the member for Canberra pointed out, the ACT is the seat of our nation's federation, the site decided between the states for an Australian government which was beyond the individual interests of any one state or territory.The member for Canberra went to section 125 of the constitution, the spirit of which is clearly that land in the ACT remains ostensibly in the public's hands. Extending leases to 999 years is essentially a cute way of dealing with the nation's constitution. I think that treating the constitution in such a cute way is an invitation for difficulties later on.The ACT has none of the planning problems endemic to other capitals because often they are established in a haphazard way. Canberra was planned and the leasehold system has been the legal backbone to planning control. For example, we do not have to suffer a lot of the land speculation difficulties that are so rampant in cities like Sydney and Melbourne because we have, in my view, more intelligent ways of avoiding unnecessary speculation of land. That is, in part, a contributing factor to lower housing prices. These are real benefits to the ACT community.The political forebears of this place determined that the nation's capital should be planned in such a way as to benefit the capital of a modern democracy such as Australia. Indeed, the Burley Griffin plan, with the additional planning controls exercised by the National Capital Development Commission in the 1960s and 1970s, was instrumental in developing a sense of community within the national capital that is reflective of the Australian community at large.Canberra is a unique city. Its town centres have been eroded to some extent by economic rationalism—I think that is pretty true to say—which has swept other regional centres, but they still provide a focus for local community activities. This bill risks the ability of all Canberrans to look after our city, to continue to control its planning processes and to ensure its heritage value to our children. It deconstructs our federal founders' vision for Canberra.The ACT government would have us believe that this bill is a magic wand for business investment in Canberra. They assert that the current system acts as a disincentive for investment, despite its benefits and despite the way established reports show that the ACT's leasehold system has a minimal, if any, effect on business decisions to invest in Canberra. Perpetual leases have been rejected by three major reports: the White report, the Langmore report and, more recently, the report headed by Justice Stein. All of these reports and comments by leading experts in urban planning and development have shown clearly that the leasehold system is irrelevant to most investors considering locating in Canberra.I turn briefly to the Stein report. Stein found that there was no evidence that our leasehold system was a disincentive to business investment in the territory. He said:No-one was able to give the Board any details of any investment which did not take place in the Territory as a sole consequence of the leasehold system . . . we have been left with a small number of admittedly anecdotal stories which were impossible to verify, despite a number of attempts. Those examples able to be scrutinised . . . revealed a variety of complex reasons behind a decision not to invest.The head of the urban research program at the Australian National University, Professor Patrick Troy, said that it was:. . . nonsense to suggest the leasehold system affected investment. Hong Kong, Stockholm, Amsterdam and Singapore were among the thriving bubbling cities which operated with leasehold systems.Even the CEO of the ACT Chamber of Commerce—someone you might expect to be an ardent supporter of a move to a freehold system, given the potential right of government to levy business on betterment charges—qualified his support for this proposition by saying that in most cases business concerns are caused by ignorance as to whether or not they would have to face a big fee for renewal and uncertainty over whether leases would be renewed.The weight of expert opinion is that there is only anecdotal evidence of any concern of business, and that what concerns there are could essentially be dealt with by better information provision to prospective investors about the security afforded by the current system. So, what should our response be as to an alternative to this current amendment? We could educate business seeking to invest here about the leasehold system or we could opt for an automatic renewal of leases so that leaseholders who wish to pursue the same kind of lease can have this automatically approved. As I have said, they are the options available to the ACT government. They do not need to come to the federal parliament seeking amending legislation to effect those propositions. They are not propositions which the ACT government have sought to implement. In my view, the ACT government should look at alternative options before going down such a fundamental road as is being followed here.I return to the issue of higher cost to ACT ratepayers. Professor Troy was reported in the Canberra Times as indicating that, although the government maintains the impact of the legislation will be cost neutral, it is likely that the lost income from commercial and industrial lease changes will ultimately mean higher rates for home owners. That is because the ACT government has the capacity to apply a levy for upgraded use via a betterment tax. As it is commercial leases that are upgraded, income otherwise generated by this measure would have to be borne by domestic leaseholders. So, what in overall terms is a cost neutral proposition by the ACT government—and, I anticipate, by the federal government—will, within that overall parameter, cost shift from industry to individual taxpayers, which is not, in my cynical world view, unexpected. I think that most balanced and objective observers would see this as an inevitable consequence of this action. Perhaps that gives us some indication as to why the ACT government has been reluctant to explore the other sensible alternatives to the approach adopted in this amending legislation.I turn briefly to the issues people talked about as being issues for developers. The previous speaker talked about opposition to this amending legislation being a disincentive to investment in the ACT and about this initiative being in some way beneficial to developers. I have talked to quite a few local developers from time to time in my electorate and in other areas of the ACT because that is a natural thing to do. It has never been raised with me that the ACT leasehold system is a concern or a fundamental issue.The sorts of questions that are raised with me go to things like the glut in the commercial property market caused by government action in dumping a whole lot of buildings onto the market at once. Both the ACT government and the federal government have been up to that. That obviously disturbs the market and causes people concern. The Commonwealth government refusing to go ahead with major projects in the Australian Capital Territory has certainly caused a lot of people in the commercial construction industry a lot of difficulties and a lot of pain and there have been a lot of job losses. Those are the fundamental issues which affect employment in this sector in the Australian Capital Territory. It has not been put to me by developers, builders or workers in this territory that their prospects or future is dimmed one whit by the current leasehold system.The amendment fundamentally changes planning and land management in the Australian Capital Territory. There is not a demonstrable need for the change, as evidenced by various independent studies that I have sighted. Even if the changes were necessary, there are better alternatives to the ones outlined in this legislation. The ACT government will lose revenue as a result of the amendment. This will, in all likelihood, be cost shifted to the residential ratepayer. Members of this parliament should take note that all ACT based members of this House oppose the amendment. I ask you to do likewise.17:27:00870Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—At the outset I must say that this proposal arouses passion on both sides of the debate within the ACT. Canberrans are passionate about their city. I feel confident in saying that they value the environment in which they live and are suspicious of actions which may in any way open that environment to any form of abuse in the future. I believe that the leasehold system has enabled the development and growth of this city to a level of environmental and urban excellence. I know that a majority of the residents would agree with me on that. The history behind the leasehold system in the ACT has been well documented and discussed often, and is there for those interested to further examine if they wish. I do not intend to go over that history again here today.What we really have here is a proposal which attempts to address perceptions; not proven realities, but perceptions. The perception is, I understand, that business investment in the ACT is discouraged because of the 99-year lease arrangement. It is argued—and this has been the argument in previous years—that, ideally, a move to freehold would remove those perceived disincentives. There has never been a real example of an investor purposely deciding not to invest here because of the 99-year lease system. In fact, as previous speakers have mentioned and I wish to mention again, there are many places around the world where leasehold systems operate to enormous levels of success, amongst which is Singapore. Some people say, and I had it said to me again today, that some of our neighbours in Asia have a particular problem in dealing with the leasehold system. Whilst not actually denying that, I immediately asked the question, `Well, if that's the case, where does Singapore, for example, get its investment from?'Another major question is one of revenue. Some people claim that there are no revenue implications; others claim that revenue implications are there implicitly. In discussing that particular point of the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997 , I will refer to the explanatory memorandum, which is worth a close reading. On page 2, under the heading `Problem or issue', it says:An amendment to the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988 is proposed to address a perceived disincentive to business and other investment in Canberra, brought about by the limit of land tenure to 99-year estates, as distinct from freehold title enjoyed elsewhere in Australia.Further down page 2 of the explanatory memorandum, four options are outlined for consideration in reaching the decision that the government has made in presenting this particular piece of legislation. The costs and benefits of the four options are also listed. It is interesting that the same cost is included for each of the three options, including for the change to a 999-year lease period as the preferred option. On page 3 of the explanatory memorandum it says:The opportunity for the ACT Government to raise revenue through fees for renewal at the end of a lease would potentially occur only once every 999 years instead of 99 years. However, revenue can still be raised for changes in lease purposes.I reiterate that that cost is attached to each of the three options in the explanatory memorandum that pursues the wish for a 999-year lease period. The one option that does not include that is the one that says `No legislative action'. Amongst the benefits of that option that are listed, one says:Potential for raising revenue through renewal fees.Under the costs of that option it says:Continued perceived disincentive to investment in Canberra.The Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government (Mr Somlyay) referred to these perceptions in his second reading speech. What concerns me most about this proposal is that we keep coming back to the argument about perceptions of potential investors.As has already been explained, residential leases are automatically renewed. Under the current regime, commercial leases, as I understand it, are similarly virtually automatically renewed, should there be no change to the purpose of the lease at the time. Whatever administrative charges need to be made are made at that time. The illusion that somehow changing to perpetual lease will dramatically change the base upon which business operates should be further considered.In doing so, I preface my comments by drawing attention to the capital property trust which operates in the ACT. It is one of the most successful in the country in its field. It was established here on a leasehold system of 99-year leases. I understand that, in general terms, capital investment has a payback period in the commercial world. I understand from advice I have had that it is around seven to 10 years—maybe a bit longer or maybe a bit shorter, depending upon the amount of capital invested—and that this is an accepted and reasonable business horizon. What difference in impact would there be on capital business between 99 years and 999 years when you are talking about a business horizon for capital investment?It is possible that the period of the lease is not really the question: more likely, it is the perceived freedom that could come with virtual perpetual leases. Is any control of our planning likely over time to be relinquished by Canberra ratepayers should this proposal occur? I do not know the answer to that question. I am posing it. As the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) stated earlier, this item has been off the local political agenda for some time although, interestingly, it reappeared in the lead-up to the recent ACT election. I will make a couple of serious suggestions. Should problems be faced by potential investors in the ACT and by business people who are already here—business people whom I know personally who have worked hard and had the faith in this town to invest over the years, and through whose investment a lot of the growth and development in the ACT have occurred, and I commend them for that—I do not believe that a change from 99- to 999-year leases is going to affect that one iota.These problems would be far better addressed at the ACT government level, without any need to come to the federal parliament at all. If all the energy that was going into this proposal were directed to fixing up the planning and approval processes within the ACT government level, without a doubt, that would have an immediate impact on investment in the ACT. You do not need to talk to many business people around this town before you start noticing a very consistent theme: their frustrations start and finish almost exclusively with the planning and approval processes that they must go through.I am not going to pretend that I have the answers to that. In a town like Canberra, where planning has been so beautifully done over the years, there is a lot of concern that certain levels of acceptance be maintained. From my observations, investment here will not automatically change with this particular legislative change. What will assist, without any doubt whatsoever, is a proficient, fair and expeditious planning and approval process and regime.When I was in Melbourne recently, I had the opportunity to have lengthy discussions with the mayors of two very large cities in urban and outer urban Melbourne. In both cases, they were facing problems similar to Canberra's. They needed to re-establish an employment base after their employment base had been eroded by actions outside their control—a very large industrial base had closed down. In our case, a very large employer, the Public Service, has been downgraded and outsourced at great speed.In both cases, they were looking at ways to inventively promote investment, development and growth in their economies. I asked both of them what they were doing to start that process. They both said, `You have to have a regime in place so that when the investor walks in the door you are ready for them, you can cope with their proposals and, given the appropriate regimes and checks, it can happen smoothly, quickly and with no undue delay.'That is not what appears to happen in the ACT, and I would say that the energy going into this debate should be going into that very area. I will finish on a slightly cynical note and I do not apologise for it. The other thing that would assist would be a Prime Minister and a federal government who actually carry out policies in this town that encourage growth and an economic future and do not erode them away. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I fully endorse the comments of the two previous speakers, despite the rude interjections.17:38:00872Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—The Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 1997 will be a windfall for thousands of property owners in Canberra. It will enable people who invested in property with 99-year leases to have their titles upgraded to virtual freehold status—a 999-year lease—therefore improving their investments without their having to pay a cent.It will see the end of a unique Australian system of land tenure that was designed to meet the special needs of the nation's capital, and it is one that has worked very well. It is part of what I believe to be this government's misguided attempts to be seen to be reviving the incomes of Canberra's property developers and speculators who have suffered so much since the government came to power and sacked thousands of public servants, causing real estate prices to stagnate.I use the term `to be seen' to be reviving the fortunes of property investors because it is doubtful whether this really will have any major benefits. Indeed, many inquiries over the years that have looked at this very proposal have stated otherwise. One of those inquiries, the Stein report, stated that there was no evidence whatsoever of any potential investors turning away because of Canberra's leasehold system. On the other hand, there is evidence that business investors have been attracted to the ACT after being given leases at less than market value.It is property speculators who stand to gain the most by the passage of this bill, which will take Canberra a step down the path from being a unique national capital with appropriate land management to being just another country town in southern New South Wales, only with better roads. The 1988 joint subcommittee report on the ACT land tenure system stated:Canberra land is a national heritage to be safeguarded and used for the benefit of the nation and its capital.That fact has been brought home to me by one of my constituents, the eminent architect Mr John Andrews. Mr Andrews is an internationally recognised Australian architect. His best known work in Australia is the Cameron offices at Belconnen, which the federal government now plans to demolish in another attempt to prop up Canberra's real estate market. The Cameron offices complex, completed in 1977, is one of only three buildings in the national capital recognised by the International Union of Architects as being significant, as being of world class. It is regarded as one of the most outstanding buildings of its era, and the only example of that particular architecture style in Australia.The Royal Australian Institute of Architects has nominated the complex for listing by the Heritage Commission. In the architectural world, the proposal to demolish the Cameron offices complex is one of the greatest acts of architectural vandalism that has been seen in this country. Indeed, it is economic rationalism gone mad, being perpetrated by a government that wants to artificially kick-start the ACT property market. The Australian newspaper has described it this way:The government plans to create a more profitable level playing field for the private sector by getting the public sector to dispose of its own low-cost assets in order to occupy new high-cost, high-rent private ones.For John Andrews, who turned his back on a burgeoning architectural career in Canada to return to Australia to build the Cameron offices complex, the proposal to demolish it is devastating—even more so when you consider that his other outstanding architectural work in Australia, the American Express tower in Sydney, has now been vandalised beyond recognition in the interests of so-called modernisation. He seriously questions the estimated $70 million the government says it would cost to refurbish the Cameron office complex. He says that the only reason the offices are in such a poor state is that the Commonwealth has failed to maintain the buildings over the past 20 years.The official line is that the buildings have passed their use-by date and are not functional. It is a tragedy that the Commonwealth can spend so much to build what was the biggest office complex in Australia in its day and then, 20 years later, its use-by date is up. The so-called experts who have made the recommendation to demolish the Cameron offices complex have not even contacted Mr Andrews to seek his opinion on how it could be restored or refurbished. He asks, `Why not transform it into the proposed Museum of Australia, rather than waste hundreds of millions of dollars building a new complex on the shores of Lake Burley Griffin?'10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—Order! Whilst this might be very interesting information, it needs to relate to the bill that is before us.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDREN—Mr Deputy Speaker, if you do not mind, I intend very rapidly to get back to that point. I am talking about a particular public building in Canberra that is part of a whole concept of extending leasehold arrangements to 999-years to facilitate private development of buildings. I say that you have one icon of Australian architecture here that could be a victim of that rush to get rid of public buildings.I say to the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government (Mr Somlyay) that, if this is the best regional development policy you can come up with in this particular sitting, it is a sad day for Australia. I urge the members of this House and other assemblies who stand to boost their own interests from extending this particular leasehold arrangement to think twice. There is almost a conflict of interest in this. I mean no disrespect, but it is a bit of an Australian tradition to bash Canberra. Personally, I think we should be grateful to our forebears and planners who played such a part in shaping this city. We have a national capital we can be proud of, and I believe the leasehold arrangement that we have in place is part of the reason for that. Canberra is a city containing a showcase of architecture from this century and, provided other governments do not take short-sighted decisions, they are examples that will last forever.As legislators, we must be careful to ensure that changes are for the better and that we do not give away the necessary powers that have been used effectively in the past to safeguard the orderly development of our national capital. I do not believe this bill will have dire consequences for the future of Canberra, but I do believe it is giving away a valuable planning and revenue raising tool in the interests of short-term political popularity.17:45:00873Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLPMinister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government10—in reply—I thank the honourable members for Canberra (Mr McMullan), Namadgi (Ms Ellis) and Fraser (Mr Dargavel), my colleague the member for Indi (Mr Lieberman) and the member for Calare (Mr Andren) for their contributions to this debate, but the simple fact that members on the other side have ignored is that this legislation does not change one lease in the ACT. This is merely enabling legislation to give power to the duly democratically elected Legislative Assembly of the ACT so they can have a say in the destiny of their land tenure system. We are giving the ACT Assembly the power to increase lease tenure from 99 years to 999 years. The simple fact also is that, if the members for Canberra, Namadgi and Fraser—who I presume are leaseholders in the ACT—want to avoid 999-year leases, then they do not have to apply. This legislation will not force anyone to change their lease. To have a lease change under these proposals, one needs to apply. So it is matter of choice.This was a clear election policy of the government before the last election. I introduced this legislation into the House late last year so it could be on the table in time for the ACT Legislative Assembly election, and I am very pleased that Kate Carnell and the Liberal government of the day did so well in that election. The federal shadow minister for territories is Senator Faulkner, who is in another place. The Leader of the Opposition in the ACT Legislative Assembly, Mr Berry, opposed this legislation before the Assembly election, but the Labor Party in Canberra did very badly in that election. A member of Senator Faulkner's staff rang my office and asked whether we would put off this legislation to a later date as the Labor Party did not have a policy because the election and the composition of the Assembly had not been determined and the ACT Leader of the Opposition had not been elected. We have a policy. We took it to the people. I introduced this bill back in December, and the people voted on it. I commend this bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.874Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Somlyay) read a third time.Bills874R410874Debate resumed from 3 December 1997, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.17:50:00874Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I indicate at the outset that the opposition will be opposing the Law Officers Amendment Bill 1997 and we will be dividing at the end of the second reading debate. This bill is a disgrace. This bill is an attempt to basically diminish the office of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General. It is a bill that shows that the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) has now involved himself in the final capitulation—not only has he abrogated the role of first law officer of the Commonwealth; he has now basically downgraded the position of the senior legal officer of the Commonwealth. It is the view of the opposition that this bill strikes at the very heart of the independence of the Solicitor-General.It is appropriate to go back to 1964 and look at the history of the current Law Officers Act 1964. It is appropriate because that gives the history of why the Solicitor-General has the particular remuneration and benefits he now has. The Law Officers Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives on 22 October 1964 and then became the Law Officers Act 1964. The second reading speech was given by the then Attorney-General, Mr Snedden, the then member for Bruce. At page 2,219 of the Hansard he states:The purpose of this Bill is to reconstitute the statutory office of Solicitor-General of the Commonwealth, which was created by the Solicitor-General Act 1916.So the bill was about separating the Solicitor-General from the permanent head of the Attorney-General's Department. It is worth quoting what is reported further on in the second reading speech because it goes to the heart of what the government is doing at the moment:The Solicitor-General will hold a non-political office, and, as in New South Wales and Victoria, he will be kept free of departmental responsibility and administration so that he can concentrate on his function as permanent counsel for the Crown.Further on it states:The conclusion must be that the office of Solicitor-General should become a separate office.. . . . . . . . .. . . the Minister needs an officer in a similar relationship to him in regard to his functions as counsel for the Crown. The Solicitor-General will be that officer, taking precedence after the Attorney-General in Federal courts and discharging the function of second law officer of the Commonwealth.Further on:He will retain the independence of counsel, because, although he will have only one client, he will during the term of his appointment, be assured of security of tenure.. . . . . . . . .The term of a Solicitor-General's appointment is to be a fixed term, not exceeding seven years, but he is to be eligible for re-appointment.I repeat: this was an act put forward by a conservative government—it was a Liberal government. The trouble with the government that we have at the moment is that it is no longer Liberal; it is capital `C' Conservative. It is not interested in the separation of powers; it is not interested in the independence of officers. The second reading speech goes on:In this way the Bill gives proper security to the Solicitor-General who will give up a greater income in private practice to become a non-political officer, outside the Public Service—I repeat: outside the Public Service—serving different governments in succession.The Law Officers Bill at that time had the support of the then opposition. The then member for Werriwa, Mr Whitlam, on 28 October 1964 in the House of Representatives Hansard at page 2,445, had this to say—and I think he goes to the nub of the matter; and, I repeat, it was a bill that had cross-party support:The new position will be the most significant and challenging legal post in Australia. The Solicitor-General to be appointed under this Act will have the opportunity of appearing in nearly all the constitutional cases and most of the administrative cases which will determine the rights of citizens and governments in this country. He will contribute more than any lawyer of his time to the making of the laws of the country. It is often thought that whoever appears for the government must be the Devil's Advocate. Governments, however, are not only oppressors; they are liberators; and the Solicitor-General will be rather the voice of the people in most of the cases in which he appears.Unfortunately, the Solicitor-General who has recently retired, Dr Gavan Griffith, represented the Commonwealth in the recent Hindmarsh Island bridge case before the High Court. He retained the brief in that matter, even though he was at the private bar. Sadly, acting on instructions from this government, the former Solicitor-General submitted to the High Court, on instructions from this government, that the race power should be interpreted as if it were the power as of 1901. Frankly, that submission and those instructions showed that this government are not liberators; they are oppressors. There are a number of other matters that the Solicitor-General properly put. It is fair to say that the former Solicitor-General was also acting as devil's advocate. He made submissions to the court and responded, as was expected of him and as he has always done, truthfully and honourably. We await the decision of the court in that case, and I do not want to pre-empt that decision.The position of Solicitor-General is an important one. We on this side of the House believe in the separation of powers. We believe in an independent public service, a non-political public service. We believe that the second law officer of the Commonwealth, the Solicitor-General, should be outside the Public Service and should have the remuneration currently afforded a Solicitor-General. It is that remuneration, that security of tenure and that independence of office that attract the quality of candidate that is required—indeed, necessary—particularly when you have a government of the current political persuasion, a cabinet full of bush lawyers and an Attorney-General who has abandoned the traditional role of first law officer of the Commonwealth and who, as is now becoming obvious, is being rolled by his cabinet consistently, submission after submission.We on this side of the House are appalled at this amendment bill that is currently before the House, because it changes substantially the independence of the Solicitor-General and his ability to give independent, strong and vibrant advice to the government. Intentionally or unintentionally, it makes the Solicitor-General a prisoner. I repeat: it was not a Labor government that brought in the Law Officers Act 1964. I will repeat what the then Liberal Attorney-General said in his second reading speech of 22 October 1964:In this way the Bill gives proper security to the Solicitor-General who will give up a greater income in private practice to become a non-political officer, outside the Public Service, serving different governments in succession.But what does the current Attorney-General say in his second reading speech in terms of varying the conditions? The justification is a couple of paragraphs. He says:The terms and conditions of service for the Solicitor-General are similar to those for a judge of the Federal Court of Australia and include eligibility for a judge's pension and payment in lieu of unused long leave on the same basis as for a judge.Section 16 of the act applies the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 to the Solicitor-General as if he or she were a judge, albeit with some modifications as to entitlements. Section 16A of the act provides for a payment to the Solicitor-General on retirement in lieu of unused long leave.And what does the government say, through the Attorney-General:The government does not consider it appropriate that these arrangements apply to the occupant of the office of Solicitor-General.Why not? The opposition believes they are appropriate. The opposition believes that those conditions will enable quality candidates to be appointed to this position to give fierce independent advice to this government. But this government is not interested in fierce independent advice. And it is interesting that this government, during the Wik amendments, did not appear to seek advice from the then Solicitor-General, Dr Gavan Griffith, as to whether its amendment bill is consistent with our international obligations or consistent with the Racial Discrimination Act. True it was that the Solicitor-General gave an opinion in relation to the race power and that is now before the court.We in the opposition believe that this is an inappropriate bill to be bringing. It is inappropriate because it diminishes the office of the Solicitor-General. It diminishes the field of applicants for that position. One has to ask: why? Because this government is not interested in quality independent advice. This government uses code words. It says one thing when it means another. This government despicably—and I use the word deliberately—sends the former Solicitor-General down to the High Court in the Hindmarsh Island bridge case to basically argue that our constitution is still an inherently racist document and that our constitution might allow apartheid type laws—Nuremberg type laws—and might allow this parliament to bring in penalties for theft by Muslims that mean the cutting off of their hands.I do not blame the Solicitor-General for those submissions. I blame this government—this mean-spirited government, this government with a Prime Minister who wraps himself around the flag, the constitution and the separation of powers. Since this Prime Minister has come into office, there has been no such thing as independence. The govern ment are price driven; quality is out the window. What you have are apologists. That is all they are interested in. They want people that conform with their point of view.The day of reckoning will come for this government. It will be held to account for the sort of society that it is producing for a modern Australia. The sort of independent advice that it relies on is another example and is consistent with this government. When it comes to parliamentary committees, we now have a secretariat servicing two committees. This is a government without a soul. This is a government that does not listen. This is a government that wants to hear only what it wants to hear, and there is nothing more indicative of this government not wanting independent and fierce advice than this bill before the House at this time. This bill is going backwards, not forwards. This bill, if it is accepted by the parliament, will not produce an office that will attract quality candidates, will not produce an office that requires fiercely independent advice. Frankly, it is a backward step.The Attorney-General should come into this House and do a little bit better than he did in his second reading speech. But perhaps the quality of the Attorney-General's second reading speech indicates his true feelings in relation to this bill. Is this another bill where he was rolled by his cabinet, where he has got the riding instructions of his cabinet and he does not have his heart in it? Because I have to say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the justification for this bill in the second reading speech is no justification at all. It is an appalling second reading speech for such a substantial change to such a high office. It is as though the Attorney-General is telling us in his own way that his heart is not in this bill, that this is not a bill that he genuinely supports, but that he is going through the motions for cabinet solidarity, for party solidarity, because this is the requirement.This Attorney-General was rolled when it came to $120 million of legal aid cuts. Why? Because we had a Prime Minister who went on the Laurie Oakes program and did not know that there was a cabinet submission circulating in relation to legal aid cuts. The bean counters are in there, like they are in there for Dr Kemp, the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Why? This is a bean counters act. It is not about quality; it is price driven and it will drive down quality.That is why we on this side of the House will be opposing it and we will be dividing. We will be reminding those in government that they are undoing an act of parliament that was sponsored by the then Attorney-General, Mr Snedden, and supported by both sides of the House and that the Solicitor-General since that time has acted honourably and nobly and according to the terms of that office. We believe on this side that the Law Officers Act 1964 as it presently is helped play that role, helped attract quality candidates to that position and gave that position prominence, as it should in the legal system, in the position of advocacy on the part of the Commonwealth.I just cannot help thinking that what we now have is a government that really is—as the former member for Werriwa, Mr Whitlam, said back in 1964, `Governments, however, are not only oppressors; they are liberators'—not a government of liberators but a government of oppressors. This is a government that at every angle you turn, at every portfolio you turn, is ideologically driven. This is an ideologically driven bill that is before the House at the moment. It is a bean counter's bill.This is a government without soul. This is another bill that shows it is a government without soul. It is not interested in quality. It is a government that in time the Australian electorate will form a judgment on. It is a government that is, frankly, unfit to govern. The sort of garbage that is being put forward in this bill is symptomatic of what is happening across other portfolios of this government. It is not about independence. It is not about professional advice. It is not about making our society a better society, a fairer society. It is about having people in positions who, when asked to jump, will respond, `How high?'That is my summary of this particular bill. That is what I believe this bill does to the office of Solicitor-General should it be carried by this parliament and passed through the Senate. It diminishes the office of Solicitor-General. True it is that we have a Prime Minister who day by day is diminishing in office, but he does not have to diminish every other office in the country. I repeat: we will be opposing this bill strenuously, and we will be dividing on the motion for the second reading and opposing it in the Senate.18:10:00877Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—It is always very interesting when the honourable member for Banks (Mr Melham) puffs himself up and comes in here with mock indignation and pretends to huff and complain about what the government is doing.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It is not mock; it is real indignation!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The honourable member should listen. He ought not to interject. The honourable member for Banks has got this whole bill entirely wrong. The Law Officers Amendment Bill 1997 is a very appropriate bill. It is not a bill which aims to save money. At the end of the day, the total remuneration received by the next and future solicitors-general could well be more than the current package received by the now retired Solicitor-General. The bill amends the conditions for the Solicitor-General from those which we believe in 1998 are inappropriate and instead treats the Solicitor-General as a very senior public servant, which he is, not as a person occupying a judicial position.The provisions of section 16 of the Law Officers Act 1964 treat the Solicitor-General as though he were a judge. It is interesting to note some of those conditions. For instance, the Solicitor-General can have an entitlement to a judge's pension in certain circumstances and long service leave of six months for every five years of service. Also, the Solicitor-General would receive nine weeks annual recreation leave per year. Is it appropriate in 1998 that the Solicitor-General, a senior public servant, should get six months off for every five years and should receive nine weeks annual leave? Most people in the Australian community would say that those provisions should relate to judges, not senior public servants.The bill will not necessarily reduce the remuneration package of the Solicitor-General. In fact, the government will facilitate consideration by the Remuneration Tribunal of a package for the Solicitor-General with a view to rewarding more appropriately a person who is not always at the end of his professional life. Dr Gavan Griffith has now returned to the private bar and will be very successful. There are many motivations which will encourage people to seek the position of Commonwealth Solicitor-General and money is not necessarily one of the prime factors. In fact, the salary currently being received, even with pension benefits, would undoubtedly be well below the average remuneration that a person of the eminence of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General would receive in private practice at the bar.The government is confident that we will continue to be able to attract applicants of the highest possible calibre to fulfil this position, that of the second law officer of the Crown in the Commonwealth. Many people will apply for this job because of the job satisfaction it provides, because of the mental stimulation, and because of the public recognition that filling that office displays to the Australian community. No-one under any government could possibly fill the position of Commonwealth Solicitor-General unless he or she were one of the most eminent lawyers in the land. It really is insulting to say to those seeking the position that they are motivated by purely financial reasons. More and more we find solicitors-general are returning to the private bar. I think this is right, fit and appropriate.SK6SMITHMr Tony Smith—It's healthy.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is healthy. Solicitors-general will fill the position for a determined period, will carry out their job with very great distinction and then will return to the private bar and maybe then to judicial office. The benefits that are currently given to the Solicitor-General, those similar to those available to judges, are more appropriate to people approaching retirement. In the future, more and more solicitors-general will look upon that position as being one part of a multifaceted career.When the honourable member for Banks comes in and pretends that he is upset with the government then one ought to look very closely at his motives and attitudes. The simple fact of the matter is that the government fully recognises the importance of the role of the Solicitor-General and greatly respects that role. It is absolute nonsense for the honourable member for Banks to suggest that the government is not interested in a fiercely independent Solicitor-General—that we are not interested in quality and first grade advice. What an absolutely stupid statement for anyone to make.Why would any government or any Attorney-General want the person who is the second law officer of the Commonwealth submitting views and opinions which are substandard and not first rate? It is absolutely facile for the honourable member for Banks to come into this chamber and say that the government is not interested in the quality of its legal advice. His speech was all over the place. Even for the honourable member for Banks it was grossly disorganised.This is not a large bill. It is a very small bill which amends the terms and conditions for people filling the role of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General. It is not a bill that requires a 30-minute speech. The honourable member for Banks was unduly harsh on the Attorney-General (Mr Williams), whose second reading speech set out concisely the purpose for this bill appearing before the House. The Attorney-General stated in his second reading speech:The government does not consider it appropriate that these arrangements apply to the occupant of the office of the Solicitor-General.In a concise manner the Attorney-General set out the reasons the government believes that this legislation is necessary. What the opposition is saying has absolutely no basis in truth. They are saying that we are not interested in having a fiercely independent Solicitor-General. Of course any government wants an independent Solicitor-General who will produce objective advice. They are also saying that we do not want quality legal advice. How stupid could one be. Who on earth would want legal advice that is not of high quality? The suggestion is that this is a bean counters exercise, that we are somehow trying to save money. The information I have is that very little money, if any, will be saved, because the government will facilitate consideration of the remuneration package for the Solicitor-General by the Remuneration Tribunal. It could well be that that review will ensure that the Solicitor-General actually receives more rather than less money by way of salary.The honourable member for Banks also suggested that this bill will result in a lower calibre of candidate applying for the position of Commonwealth Solicitor-General. In doing so, he is undermining the public spirited attitude of the community service provided by many people who fill these very high positions. We are confident that applicants of high calibre will continue to come forward to fill what is one of the most leading legal positions in Australia.The honourable member for Banks continued to stray everywhere. He accused the Attorney-General either of not putting his heart into this particular bill or of being rolled by the cabinet. He even criticised the Attorney-General's attitude. We then went on a voyage of mental wandering when he talked about apartheid and Nuremburg. In fact, he spoke about everything but the absolutely shameful conduct of Senator Bolkus, who went on the airwaves to read some of an affidavit which had not been publicly disclosed. Has the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) called on Senator Bolkus to resign? Of course he has not and of course he should. The honourable member for Banks should be the last person to stand up in the chamber and accuse the government of not doing the right thing. It is just pathetic given the appalling conduct by Senator Bolkus.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! I am reluctant to interrupt, but I think we will stick to the Law Officers Amendment Bill 1997.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for that. I am endeavouring to do so. I must say that I did not feel that I took any more latitude than the honourable member for Banks who, as you would be aware, proceeded to talk about the Hindmarsh Island bridge case and Wik.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is why I was reluctant to interrupt you. I think we should keep to the Law Officers Amendment Bill.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to do so, but I ask that you impose the same set of rules on opposition members as on government members. We all have to be treated the same way.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I asked you to come back to the Law Officers Amendment Bill 1997. Do you want to do that or do you want to debate the issue with me?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I am happy to debate the bill—SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Having sat through this debate—and I am not quite aware whether you have or not—I must say that I found the speech by the honourable member for Banks to be full of invective and abuse, one could say. In the spirit of people being allowed to vent their spleen from time to time—and, indeed, one expects it from the opposition, I must say—one did not ask you to intervene. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that the member be allowed to complete his speech in an ordinary way.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—He is being permitted to complete his speech in an orderly way. All I did was draw his attention to the bill. If you were listening to the speech carefully, you would recall that I did allow a lot of latitude, because he had strayed from the bill for some time. I then asked him to come back to the bill that we are debating. I think it is my role to do that. You are taking up the member's time; are you aware of that?SE4BISHOPMrs Bishop—I will give it back to him in one moment, but I have to point out that the reason I was not sure whether or not you were in the chair when the honourable member for Banks was speaking was that I heard not a whisper from the chair, and I think the same standard should apply to the member who is speaking now.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I was listening to the honourable member for Banks when he was speaking but he very cleverly kept coming back to the bill. That is the difficulty that one has in the chair. One is always reluctant to intervene because it eats into an honourable member's time, but one also has a responsibility to make sure that members speaking stick to the subject. When you are about to intervene, the member who is speaking comes back to the bill in question every so often.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been coming back to the bill every so often. I have, in fact, concentrated on and focused my speech on the bill. You only appeared to be upset when I referred to the outrageous conduct of Senator Bolkus. I think that most people in the community accept that Senator Bolkus's conduct was unsuitable and that he should have been asked to resign.In summing up, this is a bill which the government very strongly supports—a government of which I am very proud to be a member. This is important legislation which gives due weight to the vital role played in Australia by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General. This bill is not to be seen as a diminution of the important responsibilities of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, but more a recognition of the fact that the occupancy of that high office is a phase in someone's legal career. It is not an end point. The current conditions—including six months leave for every five years of service and nine weeks annual recreation leave—are not appropriate for someone who will go back to the private bar.We believe that the bill will ensure that we continue to receive applicants of very high calibre. We will encourage the Remuneration Tribunal to look at the high level of responsibilities of the office of the Solicitor-General so that we are able to continue to attract into that position people who are of appropriate ability. The honourable member for Banks failed to recognise that many people do not apply for these positions simply on the basis of money. Anyone who fills the role of the Commonwealth Solicitor-General is adjudged as being an outstanding lawyer—in fact, one of the finest legal practitioners in the country—and the fulfilment of a contract period as Commonwealth Solicitor-General will naturally ensure that the price tag on such a person back at the private bar will be considerable.The honourable member for Banks has come into the chamber and he has huffed and he has puffed. He has been full of mock indignation. He has criticised the attitude of this government. He really could have got up, supported what the government is doing and then sat down. On the other hand, if he wanted to criticise what we are doing, he could have done so briefly. But, instead, he took us up various paths and byways. His speech was disorganised, I do not think his heart was in it, and I totally reject his criticism of both the Attorney-General and the government. He said that this government will face a day of reckoning. We are happy to face that day of reckoning whenever it happens to be, because the legislation we have introduced into the parliament is legislation of which we are proud. It is legislation which gives appropriate weight to the importance of the office of Commonwealth Solicitor-General. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.Sitting suspended from 6.27 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:00880Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonLP10—I frequently get submissions and comments made to me from my constituents of Dickson on the importance of ensuring that the government adopts initiatives and policies which exhibit a responsibility in the spending of my constituents' tax dollars. The Law Officers Amendment Bill 1997 is a small piece of legislation but, nonetheless, an important principle is contained therein.We should bear in mind that the principal act itself was passed in 1964, a long time ago when conditions, especially in the legal profession, were very different from what they are now, and we should bear in mind that `the times they are a changing'—well and truly. That particular quote comes from the Peter, Paul and Mary song written by Bob Dylan back in the 1960s. The fact of the matter is that we are in the 1990s and we are almost at the turn of the century.With this particular measure, the very small bill to amend the principal act is a responsible one. The bill moves on in its realistic apprais al of the legal profession and its operation, in particular the emphasis. In my view, it is a good emphasis to have eminent members of the legal profession, from whom appointees are drawn to a position such as this, be offered this position and then to take the position but, at the same time, it should not be seen as a position that is putting people out to pasture or really as a sinecure.We do have some precedents on this position of Solicitor-General, where solicitors-general in the past have, in fact, gone back to the bar. I am not in any way, shape or form casting aspersions on them for doing so. Bob Ellicott comes to mind immediately as someone who, in fact, did that. This illustrates an important point as to how the electorate in particular is perceiving benefits, which are very generous, given to people who do go back to practising law. There is an overgenerosity in the present system, in my respectful submission, and I think we need to draw it in.There is no agenda behind what the government is doing here other than that: it is a realistic appraisal of the act as it is in the context of the late 1990s, with a view to bringing back some realism—ensuring that those who take on this very important position do have a future in the legal profession, that it is not one where they can go to sleep, where they can ignore trends in the law, where they can basically avoid taking decisions of importance and, at the same time, carry out their due obligations in this very important job. The encouragement of a future beyond this job—that is, a future back practising at the bar—is an important one. For it does, I believe, ultimately draw far better candidates to the job.We do have some precedent in that regard. In Queensland there was a special act prepared—I cannot think of it offhand—that related to the Solicitor-General being allowed to continue practising. Pat Keane QC, a very experienced senior member of the bar in Queensland, is the Solicitor-General and is practising as well in a private capacity. I think that is a very good precedent. I am not suggesting the government is necessarily drawing on that as a precedent, but it is a healthy way for the office to be looked at.During the debate, the honourable member for Banks (Mr Melham) raised a number of issues which I found difficult to follow in terms of where he was going with his argument. I think he was trying to say that somehow or other the government is making the Solicitor-General a puppet or a prisoner for the government with this legislation. He used the term `prisoner'. He made rhetorical statements about the government not being interested in quality advice and about the government sending the Solicitor-General to appear during the Hindmarsh Island case and being hidebound with instructions. There was a connection made that somehow or other the Solicitor-General making submissions before the High Court amounted to saying that the constitution should be interpreted as a racist document.I really think there is a temptation, particularly in politics, to make these sorts of statements from time to time. But the facts to support those statements are not enunciated. In other words, we are making rhetorical statements but where are the particulars to support those statements?4T4MELHAMMr Melham—It's on the public record.SK6Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITH—Your particular contribution to this debate did not contain particulars. I was waiting for the particulars to support your argument. I was patiently waiting to hear what you were saying that was supporting it, but I waited in vain. All I got was a continual assessment that somehow or other the government is moving in this direction because it has some agenda designed to hidebound the Solicitor-General, designed to make him a prisoner of the Attorney-General and of the government in some way. I waited in vain to hear that; we did not get it.The temptation in politics is to make these arguments full of sound and fury. The honourable member would perhaps remember something I said some time ago, that when you have really got nothing to say in an argument then do it loudly, do it aggressively, do it full of sound and fury and avoid really talking about particularity. That is the prob lem with the position that the honourable member for Banks takes on this issue. It is loud, it is entertaining and it is interesting, but it lacks substance. I enjoyed the honourable member's speech, but I really thought I was a member of a jury down in Bankstown or somewhere or other where they sit in the county courts in New South Wales listening to another contribution from the honourable member for Banks.On a more serious note, it is important to touch a little on this notion of independence. It is important for law officers of the Crown to have that sort of independence that ultimately is part of acting in the task without being circumscribed, except to the extent that instructions are given by the government—and there is nothing wrong with the government giving instructions to the Solicitor-General who is appearing in a case. He does not go down there and make up his own instructions, as we used to like to do when we were in the profession, but we could not do. We probably would have won more cases if we could have made up our instructions.The fact of the matter is he acts on instructions like any other ordinary barrister from the bottom right to the top. However, also in his role as a very senior lawyer he is not going to just meekly and lame-duckly wander down and raise no objection on any particular matter that he is asked to make submissions on. Like any barrister, obviously discussions are had. No barrister worth his salt would lamely go down and accept what he was told, unless it is a situation of such great importance to the government of the day that he is told to act in that way where it is necessary to submit on a particular point. However, I am sure he would do so after considering all of the arguments in the case and strongly submitting those arguments before going down.The importance of independence was raised. The honourable member for Banks raised a number of matters here. I think independence is very important in the legal profession, in the judiciary in particular and in the numerous tribunals around the country. I do not think anyone would argue otherwise. The Solicitor-General's professionalism is never going to be questioned because the people who will be asked to do this job, the people to whom the job will be offered, the people who will be called upon from time to time to be appointed to this position, will be the top men and women around the country.It is important to strip away some of the rhetoric but at the same time to try to inject some balance, to try to look at the points objectively and to ultimately consider that the context of this matter is the wider review of the officer's total remuneration package, including consideration by the Remuneration Tribunal whether there should be an increase in the salary payable to the Solicitor-General in the light of the earnings of members of the private bar. The bill does amend the principal act to remove the current entitlement for a judge's pension and payment in lieu of unused long leave in respect of future appointments to the office of Solicitor-General.In other words, it is an important measure, which my electorate of Dickson applauds because, as I have said before, it is always asking me what the government is doing to ensure that there is not a double-dipping situation or that these sorts of offices are not used as sinecures or that the officers are not in other ways paid too generously to fulfil these offices in light of all of the circumstances prevailing in today's legal world.So at the end of the day I am very happy to support this measure. I ask the honourable member for Banks to remember when looking at this legislation that the principal act was brought in in 1964 and we are now in 1998. I think it is about time that we look at all those sorts of things when we combine an appreciation of the current legal environment as well as the environment as far as the electorate is concerned—the cost to the people of Australia for some of these very generous schemes that are in existence. So at the end of the day I support these measures and commend them to the House.20:14:00882Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I would like to thank those who have contributed to the debate on the Law Officers Amendment Bill 1997 , but I add the rider that I think the member for Banks (Mr Melham) delivered probably the most awful speech I have heard delivered in this House. The Solicitor-General occupies a unique position as second law officer of the Commonwealth and he or she is the leader of the bar while holding office. The office of Solicitor-General is, therefore, one of the more important statutory offices created by the parliament. It is appropriate, therefore, that the terms and conditions of service applying to the Commonwealth's second law officer be a matter of interest to members.In the government's view, the office of Solicitor-General should generally be filled from among the outstanding performers at the private bar. In order to recruit a new Solicitor-General of the necessary calibre, it is necessary that the person be remunerated at a level appropriate to the skills and experience he or she brings to the job, taking into account the other things that go with the job. It is important that the remuneration package not act as a disincentive to appointment nor to the resumption of private practice.The terms and conditions applying to the Solicitor-General currently—and the member for Banks has taken us back to the 1964 bill—are similar to those applying to a judge of the Federal Court. They include an entitlement to a judge's pension in certain circumstances and long leave of six months for every five years of service. In addition, there is an entitlement to nine weeks annual recreation leave.I am concerned that these indirect benefits may act to discourage return to private practice and I will explain why. It is the government's view that the field of candidates would be wider and that it would be more appropriate for the indirect benefits applying to the Solicitor-General to be more in line with the superannuation and leave entitlements enjoyed by senior officers of the Australian Public Service. It should be noted that these proposed changes are being put forward in the context of a wider review of the officer's total remuneration package, including consideration by the Remuneration Tribunal of whether there should be an increase in the salary payable to the Solicitor- General having regard to the amount that he or she might earn at the private bar.This is not an attack on any independence. If the opposition carefully examine the bill, they will see that it relates only to remuneration, nothing else. It is not a bean counter's bill. There is no attempt to make any savings. What is intended is that the remuneration package be restructured without any diminution in its content.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—That is not what you said in your second reading speech.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—Let me focus on the—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You said it.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—Yes, and I will explain what that means in a minute, too. Let me focus on the terms that apply to a judge's pension. Under the act, the Solicitor-General is appointed for a term of a maximum of seven years. A judge's pension, to which the Solicitor-General is entitled, is not obtained until there has been a minimum of 10 years service. In other words, you have a situation built in where there is a necessity for a reappointment before a major component of the remuneration package can be earned. The second factor that affects it is that a judge's pension is not payable, except in the extraordinary circumstance of a person being totally invalided, until the age of 60. So you have the situation where the pension entitlements positively discourage the appointment of younger people.Let me take the four most recent appointees as Solicitor-General as examples. Mr A.F. Mason QC—later Sir Anthony Mason—was appointed from 1964 to 1969. He was aged approximately 39 to 44 while holding the office. Mr R.J. Ellicott QC was appointed from 1969 to 1973, a period of about four years. His age at that time was 42 to 46. Sir Maurice Byers was appointed from 1973 to 1983: he had a term and a reappointment. His age at appointment, on my calculation, was 56 and his age at retirement was 66. Dr Gavan Griffith QC was appointed in 1984. His term expired at the end of 1997. He had two seven-year terms from the ages of 43 to 56. If one is earning points towards a judge's pension, that is of benefit particularly if one goes on to a bench. Of the four, only one went from the position of Solicitor-General to the bench. That was Sir Anthony Mason. At the age of 44, Sir Anthony Mason had served for four years as the Solicitor-General. In order to qualify for a pension or part pension, he would have had to have waited 16 years, but he did not do 10 years. So a major component of the entitlement was missed out, except that I presume there were judge's pension arrangements that enabled that work to be a credit.Mr Ellicott, at the age of 46, went into parliament as the member for Wentworth. He was 14 years short of an entitlement to a pension, again a major component of the remuneration package to which he was entitled. So, of the first two that I mentioned, 14 years and 16 years is the distance from their entitlement to a pension for work that they did in their 30s and their 40s. Sir Maurice Byers had only four years to serve before the age of 60. In order to acquire a pension, he had to go until the age of 66, a period of 10 years. He then went to the bar. He did not go to the bench. By that time, because of his appointment at the age of 56, he had served six years beyond the normal pensionable age without having a pension.Dr Griffith, his term of office coming to an end at the age of 56, had four years to run. He will not get a full pension because he retired prior to the age of 60. He did not go to the bench; he went to the bar. Of the four, only Sir Anthony Mason went to the bench. He did not go to a federal bench. He went initially to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.What this is saying is that to give a pension payable at the age of 60 to a person who is likely to have the job for a five-, six- or seven-year term in their 30s or 40s is very odd indeed. It is an aberration that is inappropriate. That is the principal reason why this bill is being brought before this House.What we want is a package that will encourage people of appropriate ability to take the job but will not encourage those people to stay in the job simply to get a pension, which is what the current situation does.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—That hasn't been true of any of the recent incumbents.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—It has not necessarily been true of the recent incumbents, except perhaps Sir Maurice Byers. I do not know his personal circumstances, but he served 10 years and then retired.What we want is a package which is appropriate. We have asked the Remuneration Tribunal to fix a salary, taking into account the sorts of superannuation arrangements that are appropriate for a person working at a senior level in the Public Service, not something that is appropriate for an appointment to a lifetime job. This is not a lifetime job. The Solicitor-General is not appointed to the age of 70; the Solicitor-General is appointed for a term which can be anything up to seven years. The appointment can be renewed, but need not necessarily be.We believe that it will encourage people at all levels. It will encourage people at a younger age, facing the prospect of being at the height of their powers at the bar, to take the job because of the importance of the work and the attractiveness of the conditions. It will not encourage people to take the job purely to get a pension, knowing that they will have to get a re-appointment and not being certain that that will eventuate.The allegations made by the opposition in opposing this bill are completely groundless. This is a bill which is based on commonsense. I commend it to the House. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time.20:28:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr J.A. Forrest)78Abbott, 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, R. A. Campbell, G.Causley, I. R. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Filing, P. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Jull, D. F.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McDougall, G. R.McGauran, P. J. Miles, C. G.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.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. Zammit, P. J.41Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.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. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.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. 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. Thomson, K. J.Wilton, G. S.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.Johnston, R. Brown, R. J.McArthur, F. S. Jenkins, H. A.Worth, P. M. Morris, P. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.885Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Williams) read a third time.Committees88588510000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief National Party Whip that he has nominated members of the following committees in place of the Speaker: Mr Anthony is to be a member of the Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities; Mr McGauran is to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs; and Mr Hicks is to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration.Bills885r413885Debate resumed from 3 December 1997, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.20:35:00885O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—The Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 contains a number of amendments to primary industry and energy legislation, most of which are supported by the opposition. I would like to make a few comments on those amendments before going to the sections on which we seek to disagree with the government. In respect of those, I foreshadow that I intend to move some amendments to give effect to our views when we move to the consideration in detail stage. I would like to comment briefly on the areas that we do not have any difficulty with. There is a provision in the act relating to the Australian Horticultural Corporation. That provision seeks to remove the export trading powers of the AHC, which are the powers that gave the Australian Horticultural Corporation the ability to act on behalf of the industry in export negotiations. In reviews of these activities during the time of the former government, it came to our attention that people in the industry were not happy with the AHC having these export trading powers. They were quite determined to do the trading and marketing on their own behalf, even though the AHC had never activated those powers and put them into effect. This bill thus gives effect to the views of the industry.The agricultural policy adopted at the ALP's National Conference in Hobart earlier this year made the specific point that our belief is that there is a lot to be desired in the way Australia's agricultural value-adders go about marketing their products. Serious national problems stem from the fact that, quite often, our people are on the same jumbo jet arriving at the same marketplace where they proceed to undercut each other and they call that good business.I make no apology for the fact that a future Labor government will be revisiting some of these areas because I believe there is a case for more consolidated and coordinated marketing. While I have no problems with this particular amendment—which removes from the AHC the option to have a view about these things—I do foreshadow that the matter could well be revisited.Another section of the bill simply provides the Wine and Brandy Corporation with powers to ensure that the description of Australian export products in the wine industry are not false or misleading under the terms of agreements reached with other countries to allow our products to be exported to them. That is not to say that anyone in our industry has been falsely labelling or falsely presenting the product; it is just that it has come to the government's attention that, through an early drafting error, this particular provision is not as tight as it should be.I reiterate my earlier comments about the marketing and presentation of Australian products. We believe that these provisions must be tighter and more specific as we move to more value added products, as we must and wish to do. At the same time, our trading partners will demand more and more reassurances about food safety and food quality. This is an area of some considerable policy difference between me and my opposite number, the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson).We acknowledge the fact that these labelling requirements will be quite significant, and the presentation of Australian products will have a lot to do with the way they are labelled and presented. This might seem a relatively insignificant component of the bill, but I think it foreshadows greater national stringency and forethought about labelling requirements.Of course, that leads to the contra position about products coming into this country. Again, our national conference policy statement makes no distinction between presentation of a product to a domestic and an export customer. It begs the question why the same requirements do not apply in a number of marketplaces—generally those administered by state governments—for the presentation of food products as might be required for an export product going out of Australia. That is up to us. If we, as internal domestic consumers, do not care, then we do not care, but the fact is that consumers everywhere are beginning to want more reassurance, whether they are locals or whether they are overseas customers. We will have to insist that imported products meet the same requirements that we have of our export products. That is not to say that we do not do that now. I know it is often claimed by people who are not that well informed that our manufacturers are required to meet standards for products going out that we do not require of products coming in. No-one has yet presented to me any real evidence that that is so. I think it is part of the rhetoric of trade protests. But, if it is so, it is something that will inevitably have to be given considerable attention.We also have an interesting section of the bill which repeals the provision in the Dairy Produce Act limiting membership of the board of the Australian Dairy Corporation to people under the age of 65. That provision has been put in for obvious reasons, with changes in thinking and legislative environments around about equal opportunity and other provisions. I thought it was interesting that people over 65 can now be on the corporation board.Another provision which we wholeheartedly support gives effect to a practice which had become established under the former government regarding loan payments to families given assistance under what is now called the farm household support scheme. We found that a number of farm families given assistance on a loan basis were unable to make repayments or to repay the loans. In the end, the loans were either left sitting on the books and not enforced or were waived. This provision waives those debts and takes them off the books. We do not have any problems with that.Then we go to the bits of the bill that we do have problems with. There are a number of sections which remove from the minister's responsibility the oversight of the appointment of the senior officers of a number of statutory corporations or authorities that exist under the primary industries portfolio. For people who are not familiar with this portfolio, it has a myriad of corporations—often R&D corporations and, in some parts, marketing corporations—which have been set up by legislation, which the government has responsibility for and for which payments are made and policies are carried through. To some, it may seem quite painful for the minister of the day to have to continually oversee the appointment of the chief executives or board members of these various bodies. This bill seeks to remove that ministerial responsibility to allow the boards to appoint their own chief executives, but it ensures that they do not delegate that to anybody else.We are not in favour of that. We believe that, in the end, the government of the day will be held accountable by the constituency, whether it is the producers who pay the levies into these various corporations, the marketing people with whom they deal or the scientific community with whom they deal. In the end, people hold these organisations accountable and they hold the minister accountable for their performance.Certainly, I take the view that, if I am going to be the minister in this field and be responsible for the performance of these bodies, I want to have some say in who is appointed chief executive of them. So there are a number of amendments I will be moving. There is a long list of them because they relate to a long list of organisations, but they all mean the same thing—that is, they will omit from the bill this attempt by the government to delegate away from the minister responsibility for the oversight of the appointment of these people. We do not believe the minister should be removing himself from oversight.I know this is a problem within the government. I hear at the moment that, at the office of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), there is this great wheelbarrow full of appointments that ministers are seeking to make because the Prime Minister, for whatever reason, insists on having deep and personal knowledge of every appointment of every senior executive. Given the number of former Labor appointees who were sent on their way as quickly as they could be, I can understand why the Prime Minister seems to be obsessed with this and I can understand why there is probably a long queue. Maybe this is the reason; maybe it is as innocuous as making sure all these appointments do not have to sit in the wheelbarrow outside the Prime Minister's office. Maybe that is what this is really about. For whatever reason, we do not believe it is good enough, so we will be moving these amendments to retain that power in the minister.Then we come to what is the most significant action of the government in this legislation. It is outrageous for its audacity, and the attempt the government has made to explain what it is doing is outrageous. This is in fact one of the great rip-offs we have seen from this government in the last two years. What I am talking about is a little subclause in the bill which removes $3.6 million from the budget of the Fisheries Research and Devel opment Corporation—which is the main body that is funded by the government and the fishing industry to research the future and management of our fisheries, oceans, fishing stock and all the rest of it—and uses it to fund a shortfall in the funding provided in the general budget for managing the South East Fishery buy out. I will explain the difference between the two in just a minute.Mr Deputy Speaker Forrest, you should understand the significance of this. You represent an inland agricultural electorate. A bit of fishing goes on in the Murray River. There is not much ocean in your territory, nor mine, but we understand the significance of what we are on about here.We have a national problem which is now acknowledged by people across the nation—a national problem of managing what is happening in our oceans and within Australia's 200-mile limit. We have the government sending the navy down to capture boats from other nations that are trying to poach and overfish our fishing stock. We have just about every one of the two million recreational fisherpeople, whatever we call them, in Australia lamenting the fact that there used to be fish there and now there are not. Right at the time when the government is saying, `We have to do more research in this,' and right at the time when the House of Representatives standing committee is saying, `We need more research. We need to get our facts right,' the government is ripping money out of the FRDC.Just to make sure nobody is in any doubt about what the government says on the one hand and does on the other, I will quote from the speech by the Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill, to the 1997 oceans policy forum on 2 December last year, only a couple of months ago. His exact words were:. . . I would hope that we can ensure that our nation's important fishing sector is operating on a truly sustainable basis. This means, for example, examining the resources we provide to vital research such as stock assessments.When a minister of the Crown gets up at a forum like that and makes a speech like this to those people and says, `This means exam ining the resources we provide to vital research,' not a soul in the audience would have suspected that what he really meant was `examining it to pinch some money off it'.They all thought he meant he was going to expand the funding for fish research. No reasonable person anywhere would have construed that little statement to actually mean, `Yes, we're going to examine it and we're going to pinch $3.6 million out of the budget of the FRDC.' But that is in fact what has happened. We need to understand that it is not just about the government misleading the environment sector and the fishing industry in this way; it is also about what the participants think about this.The way funding works for the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation is that a levy is paid by the government based on the gross volume of production of the industry and a voluntary contribution tops that up, which is made by both the government and, in some cases, as I understand, some of the states who are involved in these projects. There is a further matching grant of that extra contribution by the government.The people who thought they were contributing to the FRDC's ongoing program suddenly think that they are contributing to a fund from which the government is pinching dollars to fund something else. There is already on the record a letter dated 25 June to the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) from the Western Australian Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries. He is not a Labor minister—it is a coalition government over there. They got wind that this was likely to happen, and the letter says:The industry has to date supported this plan—and here are the key words—but have now signalled reservations in light of the possible implications of Commonwealth's current Budget decisions.So you now have the states saying, `Hang on! I'm not sure whether we're going to contribute to fisheries research in Australia if you're going to be pilfering the money like this.'I said earlier that I would make a point about the South East Fishery. On the surface of things, it sort of sounds reasonable enough to pinch some money from the FRDC if you are spending it over there on fishing, and that is what the minister hoped to get away with. But, as a result of research and understanding that the South East Fishery is being overfished and that there are severe management problems, we—this is a government decision which we support, so I say `we'—have actually commenced a buy-out of quotas and operators to scale down the amount of fishing in the South East Fishery. These are people who were granted quotas and who built businesses on that, so the process is that you buy it out and buy it back as a way of reducing the amount of fishing.That is what we call `structural adjustment'. It does not matter whether it is structural adjustment in the wheat industry, the forest industry, the wool industry, the steel industry or the car industry—when we have a structural adjustment plan, we fund it off the general budget; we do not go and pinch it out of the funding of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.Mr Deputy Speaker, you know very well that, if this government went off to Wool International, to the Wheat Board or to the dairy industry, and attempted to pinch some money out of their R&D funds to top up the structural adjustment programs, they would be out of their tree. It would not get past your caucus room or government members' room. So how did a raid on the fisheries budget get through without a question? Is it that your members who represent coastal areas and the fishing industry do not care?I find this an astounding little stunt. I do not understand how it got through when you have a room full of people who claim to represent primary producers. Those who represent the other primary industries ought to understand that, if the Treasurer (Mr Costello) has pulled this one off, he is not going to finish there. So we may well be looking at an attempt to pilfer the R&D contributions from other primary industries in order to pay for structural adjustment, whether it is the farm household support scheme or whatever. Also, the minister will attempt to argue that these are all reserves, that it is not as though we are actually taking the money away from anything. Let me refer the House to an extract from the FRDC's annual report which outlines the full allocation of the $33 million worth of forward research and development commitments from year one to year five. It is not as though we are poaching from a hollow log here. Even if we were to accept it, we would not be poaching from a hollow log; we would be poaching funds from what is forward committed R&D. That simply means that, unless the industry or the government puts it back, or unless I am successful in my amendments that stop it from going altogether, rather than see an increase in research and development, which is what the minister said he wanted to see happen, we will actually see a decrease.Members in this House ought to take some note of this too because the House of Representatives standing committee which brought down its report late last year on this issue of the management of Australian fisheries was quite specific in its recommendations to the government. The report states:Many submissions highlighted the need for increased funding for research.At section 12.12, they state that the Executive Director of the FRDC pointed out:. . . the FRDC is forced to rely on the States providing their levies on a voluntary basis.This is the key point: if the states or the people in the industry get the slightest sniff of the fact that the voluntary contributions that they thought were going to expand research and development in the management of Australian fisheries is in fact money to be poached for general budget purposes, albeit given a fishing label, and is really for structural adjustment, then those voluntary levies dry up—and with it dries up the funding for the R&D that everybody concedes is absolutely necessary.In the few minutes left to me, I would also like to refer to a recent hearing of the Senate estimates committee on 26 February, only a couple of weeks ago, where there was specific questioning of Minister Parer about this very issue. He was asked specifically about raiding the money from the FRDC to fund the buy-out in the fishery, and that is what he said they were doing. He said that this money was FRDC money; it was put together with some additional money they brought from somewhere else to fund the buy-out in the South East Fishery. He also conceded, in his contribution here at the Senate estimates committee, that there was a need for additional research funding.These words ought to be carefully listened to in the context of the speech by Senator Hill. You will remember that in Senator Hill's speech, when he said to that oceans policy forum in December last year, `This means examining the resources we provide to vital research such as stock assessments,' and everybody thought he meant examining it and accepting the need to increase it, what he really meant was `examining it to find some money we can pinch out of it'. I wonder what Senator Parer's words mean. I am quoting from the Hansard of the estimates hearing where he is asked by Senator O'Brien, a Labor senator from Tasmania:But Senator Hill identified on 2 December a need for additional research funding.Senator O'Brien was wrong, of course. He only thought Senator Hill identified a need for additional research funding. But Senator Parer's answer is:Yes, that is right and this will be considered in the whole budget context. As you are probably aware, Senator Hill and I and a few others are heavily involved in developing a complete oceans policy.I suspect they are next going to the bottom of the harbour. I think that is where the missing dollars are. If, in fact, Senator Parer's words mean exactly the same as Senator Hill's words did—that is, yes, there is a need for additional funding but in fact it is going to be a funding cutback—then we are looking at an outright revolt across the nation, not only from the commercial fishing industry but also from the recreational fishing industry and a lot of people who are now concerned about management of the fisheries, the rivers and the whole thing.This little stunt—of trying to say that, if we pinch $3.6 million out of FRDC but spend it on the South East Fishery, then really it is just money being spent on fishing so it is all okay—has not gone unnoticed and in fact has been widely brought to attention, to the point where state ministers are questioning whether or not they should continue to invest in this fisheries research. We have state ministers raising that question now.I am raising the question: what about when the other industries where people pay into R&D get the slightest sniff of the fact that those funds are going to be poached for structural adjustment? Where are the government members who should be defending these things? All gone quiet. It is not a pretty picture. As I signalled at the start of my contribution, we intend to oppose those two sections of this legislation and I will, in the detailed consideration of the bill, be moving a number of amendments which give effect to both of the reservations that I have foreshadowed about the bill. (Time expired)21:05:00890Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—The Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 is not the sexiest piece of legislation. Of course, by that I mean it is not going to make headlines in our tabloids or get members due publicity. Perhaps the member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) was trying to seek that. The only thing that should be controversial about this bill is the reason that we need it at all. Nevertheless, I do support it with a degree of passion, because it is a classic example of good solid government. It is a wide-ranging housekeeping bill which improves on a range of acts which come under the primary industry and energy portfolios. Most of these acts actually date back to the Hawke-Keating years and many of these requirements and amendments are made because of bad drafting by the former Labor government.Therein lies a significant difference between this government and our complacent predecessor. We have a genuine desire and a matching ability to produce good legislation, regardless of the media attention it may not attract. This was particularly true of issues that affected rural and regional Australia. There might not have been many votes in the bush for Labor, and clearly that was demonstrated last election, but members opposite would do well to remember that it is the bush that literally puts the food on their plates and is a major contributor to Australia's export earnings. It was also the farming sector's record export levels that saved the previous Prime Minister, Mr Keating, from the humiliation of a visit by the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, during the recession that, of course, we all had to have.I propose to take a brief look at the main elements of this bill in order to demonstrate that only bloody-mindedness and wounded pride can prevent the Labor Party from offering us its support, notwithstanding the two criticisms they had of the bill before, which are quite hollow. The first is the appointment of CEOs to statutory authorities.The first set of amendments relate to the appointment of a chief executive officer to statutory authorities within the primary industries and energy portfolio. Specifically, the amendments will remove the requirement of the minister to vet the terms and conditions of employment of the CEO of organisations such as the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. These changes would bring the responsibilities of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy in line with other federal ministers.The proposed amendments follow the government's philosophy of democratic decentralisation of power and they are consistent with our approach to public sector workplace relations. Is this not a good thing to have decentralisation of decision making amongst statutory authorities because they themselves know best how to run their own organisations and to be finally accountable to the minister?The second set of proposed amendments is to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992, which will bring about a positive change to the National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals. In effect, the amendments will provide a wide scope from which applicants with relevant experience can be considered for appointment as a director of the authority. A further amendment will add an additional director to the authority with experience in the development or administration of Commonwealth government policy.Likewise, amendments to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 1987 relate to the running of the Australian Horticultural Corporation, better known as the AHC. The AHC undertakes marketing and support activities for Australian horticultural industries. Those industries include the stone fruit industry and, in my electorate of Richmond, bananas, mangoes, avocadoes and, the most successful industry in recent years, macadamia nuts—all of which are employing an ever increasing number of young people and keeping people on the land.Under the act, the AHC was given export trading powers which allow it to engage in export operations with the written approval of the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. Not surprisingly, this was not particularly popular with the export organisations, which lobbied the Industry Commission in 1992 and the Horticultural Task Force in 1993 for the removal of the corporation's export powers. The Industry Commission and the Horticultural Task Force both accepted those arguments. They recommended in their respective reports that the corporation's export powers be removed, and this amendment will do just that.Private enterprise, particularly in the rural sector, is best placed to engage in exports to the world, particularly to Asia. I know that in the Northern Rivers region of New South Wales one of the major employment generation sectors is agriculture with new sunrise industries, as I mentioned before, and the new industries of herbal medicine or pharmaceuticals. There is potential for thriving industries that may well start out of Southern Cross University and the surrounding rural districts. Another uncontroversial amendment to the AHC Act will see the Corporations Selection Committee membership reduced, which is quite logical.The amendments to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980 will correct a drafting error. I will be the first to admit that it was a coalition drafting error, but Labor was too complacent to fix it in its last 13 years of government. Perhaps that demon strates how much respect they have for the rural industry, particularly for our wine industry. The act will give force to the provision of the European Community-Australia wine agreement. This will give the Australian wine industry far greater access to the lucrative European market, which has been expanding dramatically for the Australian wine industry.An important element of that agreement relates to the accurate labelling of Australian wines. This amendment will clarify the requirements imposed on producers in relation to false or misleading descriptions in the presentation of wine. Considering wine is one of our fastest growing export markets, contributing around $500 million to date, it is absolutely crucial that we get this right and that further reciprocal obligations are fulfilled by importers coming into Australia, that they too have adequate labelling. I shall return to that subject later.The Dairy Produce Act 1986 covers a range of issues relating to the dairy industry, notably the Australian Dairy Corporation. Coming from a dairy farm and spending much of my youth on a dairy farm, I know that this is a prudent decision. The government proposes to remove the ministerial approval of appointments to the board of the Dairy Corporation in the case of candidates over the age of 65. This requirement is discriminatory according to the Public Service Merit Protection Commission and certainly goes against the grain of the coalition's commitment to older Australians, certainly to engage those Australian's worthwhile contributions, whether they be to the Australian Dairy Corporation or other authorities.After all, over half-a-dozen honourable members in this House are over the age of 65—indeed, many of the Labor members are, whether it is the member for Fowler (Mr Ted Grace), the member for Melbourne Ports (Mr Holding), the member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones), or the member for Shortland (Mr Peter Morris). Perhaps they might end up on a dairy produce board in years to come. It would be a very good education for them in understanding the plights and problems of not just dairy farmers but rural industries.The amendments to the Farm Household Support Act 1992 arise from the government's widely praised Agriculture—Advancing Australia package, better known as the AAA package. This reverses a decade of neglect and is a step in the right direction towards rural Australia. It is part of a $500 million plan that provides real help to Australian farmers and to those in the communities that rely on agriculture for their survival.There are four objectives within the AAA package which I would like to reiterate to the House. The first objective is to help individual farm businesses profit from these changes. This will be through the new farm management deposit scheme and a new farm program. The second objective is to ensure the farming sector has access to an adequate welfare safety net.The third objective is to provide positive incentives for ongoing farm adjustment, for example allowing older farmers to transfer ownership of the family farm to a younger generation. This is one of the great problems we face in this country. We have an ageing population of farmers and the younger generation does not wish to take farming on for a number of reasons. But allowing for this grace period will certainly go a long way towards bringing the next generation into a vital sector of the Australian economy. The fourth objective is to encourage social and economic development in rural areas, including funding to assist communities to develop strategic regional plans for their future and the introduction of flexible grants.In Agriculture—Advancing Australia the government announced that it would not be seeking repayment of 700 loans under the now defunct and discredited farm household support scheme. That is what this particular amendment will enact. These loans total around $5 million. A number of farmers have already paid their FHS loans and the government will reimburse these individuals. Other loan recipients will simply have their loans converted to grants. This is a prudent decision.The changes to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and 1997 are necessary to ensure that farmers are not taxed on moneys provid ed under the FHS scheme. This is certainly consistent with other income support payments and thus should not give rise to any controversy. It is interesting to note that a lot of those provisions were enacted in 1936. It is part of the government's agenda of tax reform to ensure that the tax system is relevant to the 1990s and not the period prior to the Second World War.The amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 are made necessary by another coalition government success—namely, the treaty between the government of Australia and the government of the Republic of Indonesia to establish the exclusive economic zone boundary and certain seabed boundaries which was signed in Perth on 4 March 1997. This act must be amended before the treaty can be ratified. The amendment would ensure that the boundaries in the act and treaty are consistent.The ratification of the treaty would result in an increase in the effective limit of areas over which Australia is able to issue petroleum in mining titles. In other words, we will be able to undertake more petroleum and mineral exploration once we pass this amendment and ratify the treaty. This is particularly important because the North West Shelf and this special economic zone are of major commercial and strategic interest to Australia in terms of petroleum reserves and natural gas reserves. It is even more important at the moment due to the very unstable situation for our northern neighbour. This treaty needs to be locked into place now in the event that things in Indonesia change—hopefully not for the worse.The member for Burke discussed the proposed amendments to the Primary Industry and Energy Research and Development Act 1986. This reduces the funding for the Fishery Research and Development Corporation, the FRDC, by a little over $3.6 million. This is in accordance with the measures announced in the last budget. Without doubt, the FRDC has been very well managed of late. This has left it with enough reserves to play its part in helping plug the deficit that we inherited from the previous ALP government. The $2.1 million in savings will help pull back the budget deficit of $10 billion that we inherited. The remaining $1.5 million will go to the adjustment program for the south-east fisheries.The final amendment in this comprehensive housekeeping bill relates to the Primary Industry Councils Act 1991. The amendment formally abolishes the Australian Pig Industry Council. I spent a number of years in my youth looking after pigs so I have some affinity with this sector. APIC was established in 1993 to coordinate the pig industry's involvement in the development of government policy. The pig industry itself says that APIC has had its day and it is therefore time to abolish it formally. The terms of the appointment of the APIC board ceased on 28 February 1998 and they have been refilled.Whilst on this subject, I think it is particularly important, as we have mentioned proper labelling laws for Australian wines going to Europe, that we seek from ANSFA proper labelling laws for pig meat imports coming into this country. A large percentage of hams come from Canada. I do not believe Australian consumers are given adequate labelling information to determine what is a foreign product and what is an imported product and for them to choose between Australian product and Canadian product. I hope that the labelling laws which were passed recently are enforced and that the states cooperate to ensure that the pig industry is given a sound foundation considering the problems that they have been having.This is a good government bill. I certainly urge members opposite to perhaps swallow their pride in the national interest and join us in supporting the proposed amendments which represent good policy and good government and are good for rural Australia.21:21:00893Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—In speaking in the debate on the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 I would like to restrict my remarks to that portion of the bill which amends the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. I note that the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) described these amendments as effecting a coalition government success. He underlined their importance because they relate to Australia's great petro leum resources industry. He urged their speedy passage in case of adverse consequences in Indonesia, which he hoped, like I am sure all members of the House do, are not for the worse. The second reading speech by the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs (Mr Truss) refers to clauses 40 and 41 of the bill in the following terms:The bill will amend the descriptions of the adjacent areas defined in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1997 in respect of Western Australia and Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands respectively to make the northern boundaries consistent with the seabed boundaries agreed in the Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone Boundary and Certain Seabed Boundaries, which was signed on 14 March 1997. The amendments are necessary to enable ratification of the treaty.The bill effects that at clauses 40 and 41, which amend schedule 2 of the PSLA. The explanatory memorandum is modest. It simply says:These items replace the existing boundaries with new boundaries in accordance with the Treaty between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia Establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone Boundary and Certain Seabed Boundaries.The exclusive economic zone and seabed boundaries, of course, pick up the terms that we find in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS. The Parliamentary Library Bills Digest , in dealing with this bill, regrettably misses it, which I think reflects two things. It reflects the sometimes difficult technical nature of these amendments and also the point I made to the Australian Petroleum Producers and Exploration Association Annual Conference in Canberra this morning—that our great petroleum resources industry is massively underappreciated and often overlooked.This bill goes to the question of the allocation of sovereign rights. I will come to the provisions of the treaty shortly, but the long and the short of the treaty and the bill which effects it are to establish a regime to delineate the maritime boundaries between Australia and Indonesia to the north of Australia. It has the effect that, in certain areas, the Indonesian nation state has control of the column waters and the Australian nation state has control of the seabed.The first issue I raise occurs as a result of a High Court decision in the Commonwealth of Australia v. WMC Resources, which was decided by the High Court on 2 February 1998. This relates to a treaty between Australia and Indonesia which is not the subject of this piece of legislation but which deserves comment in its own right and, in my view, raises matters which may have implications for this bill and the configuration proposed by the treaty.The majority High Court decision has the effect of saying, by way of a majority led by Chief Justice Brennan, that rights which are given in offshore waters of the Commonwealth under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act are sovereign rights but not property rights. As a consequence, if those rights are varied in any way which is not just nor fair, then the fair and just terms compensation provision of the constitution which protects property rights does not come into play because these rights are sovereign rights, not property rights.That has some potential implications for those people investing in our petroleum resources industry in offshore Commonwealth waters, and this is an issue to which the government needs to give consideration. So far, the only government response that I am aware of was when the implications of this decision were put to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) at the opening of the ABARE conference in Canberra in early February. The minister's response was that this was a matter which he would need to discuss with his colleague Senator Parer. In ministerial terms, that was probably the safe answer. It was unfortunate for the minister that the tone and demeanour of his reply created the impression amongst the ABARE audience that he had absolutely no idea what the case or the implications were about.Be that as it may, my first inquiry relates to whether the government has put its mind to the implications which arise as a consequence of this decision of a majority of the High Court with regard to rights under the PSLA being described as sovereign rights and not property rights and which, as a consequence, can be summarily taken by the Commonwealth without application of the fair and just terms compensation provision. I am not suggesting that that would occur but, in areas of petroleum exploration and petroleum production investment, there are very large sums of money involved by way of international capital and sovereign risk is an issue, so I lay that on the table.I also raise the High Court case in the context of this piece of legislation and the maritime delineation treaty. It is in this context that I inquire of the government whether it has put its mind to this matter. It is the case that the treaty was signed and this bill put into play before the High Court decision. What the treaty does and the bill implements is to change the configuration of column water sovereign rights so far as areas of water are concerned. They include areas of water in respect of which petroleum exploration leases may well have already been granted.The questions I ask are: if those petroleum leases raise sovereign rights, and this bill and this treaty interfere with sovereign rights because it gives to the Indonesian nation state rights over column waters in those same areas, has there been a disturbance of the sovereign rights which have been granted to petroleum companies by way of petroleum exploration leases? Has that sovereign right been disturbed? Might there be something in this High Court case which might suggest some adverse implications for the Commonwealth in moving to disturb the granting of a sovereign right under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act? Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a lapsed lawyer and that may well be a long bow to draw, but I would not mind inquiring of the government whether it has put its mind to the Western Mining Corporation compensation case in that context.As I outlined, the legislation implements the treaty between Australia and Indonesia, establishing, as the treaty describes, an exclusive economic zone boundary and certain seabed boundaries. The key article of the treaty is article 7—areas of overlapping jurisdiction. Subparagraph (a) of article 7 says:the First Partywhich is Indonesia—may exercise exclusive economic zone sovereign rights and jurisdiction provided for in the 1982 Convention in relation to the water column;The 1982 convention is, of course, UNCLOS—the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Subparagraph (b) says:the Second Party may exercise continental shelf sovereign rights and jurisdiction provided for in the 1982 Convention in relation to the seabed;Subparagraph (d) says:the Second Party shall give the First Party three months notice of the proposed grant of exploration or exploitation rights;On that basis, I move immediately to a joint media statement issued by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Warwick Parer, and Eric Poole, the Northern Territory Minister for Resource Development, dated 5 March 1998, which announces petroleum exploration permit awards in the Timor Sea. The statement says:The Federal Minister for Resources, Senator Warwick Parer, and the Northern Territory Minister for Resource Development, Eric Poole, today announced the names of the successful bidders for seven new petroleum exploration permits in the Timor Sea.Permits are being awarded to the following consortia and companies:. . . . . . . . .Area AC97-1 to a consortium led by Cultus Timor Sea LtdArea AC97-2 to Flare Petroleum NLArea AC97-3 to a consortium led by Mosaic Oil NLArea AC97-4 to a consortium led by ARC Energy NLDuring the next six years, an estimated $88 million will be spent on exploration in these areas . . . The four areas in the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands are in the general vicinity of the Jabiru and Challis oil producing fields.It goes on to say:In area AC97-1, awarded to Cultus Timor Sea Ltd . . . the consortium have proposed a guaranteed work program for the first three years of data review, 1,000 km of seismic reprocessing and 1,300 km 2D seismic acquisition for an estimated ex penditure of $1.7 million. The consortium has also proposed a secondary program of data review and two exploration wells for an estimated expenditure of $16.15 million.This petroleum lease granted under the joint authority arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory is petroleum lease AC97-1. That is in the Ashmore-Cartier area. If one looks at the map which is contained in the treaty documents and distributed with the treaty documents, that petroleum lease area—as I read this map and as I read the 1997 petroleum exploration lease map produced by the Bureau of Resource Sciences—is in one of the green areas on the map, which is an area of seabed jurisdiction for Australia only. This means that the water column rights reside with the nation state of Indonesia. Article 7, subparagraph (d) says:the Second Party shall give the First Party—that is, Australia shall give Indonesia—three months notice of the proposed grant of exploration or exploitation rights;So I inquire of the Commonwealth as to whether, in accordance with the treaty provisions, area AC97-1 has been the subject of the required notice provision to the nation state of Indonesia. The second query I have is in respect of AC97-1, and subparagraph (i) of article 7 states:marine scientific research shall be carried out or authorised by a Party in accordance with the 1982 Convention and such research shall be notified to the other Party;When one turns to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, in respect of marine research, relevant provisions are `Part V: Exclusive economic zone', article 56, which makes the point that in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal state has jurisdiction with regard to marine scientific research. So in the water column area, under this treaty Indonesia has jurisdiction in respect of marine scientific research.In `Part XIII: Marine scientific research' of the treaty, you find the provisions that are most pertinent and relevant. Article 248 and article 249 place a duty on a nation state like Australia, if it is engaged in marine scientific research in the exclusive economic zone of another nation state like Indonesia, to do a number of things. `Article 248: Duty to provide information to the coastal state' says:States and competent international organisations which intend to undertake marine scientific research in the exclusive economic zone . . . shall, not less than six months in advance of the expected starting date of the marine scientific research project, provide that State with a full description of:(a) the nature and objectives of the project;(b) the method and means to be used, including name, tonnage, type and class of vessels and a description of scientific equipment;(c) the precise geographical areas in which the project is to be conducted;(d) the expected date of first appearance and final departure of the research vessels, or deployment of the equipment and its removal, as appropriate;(e) the name of the sponsoring institution; its director, and the person in charge of the project; and(f) the extent to which it is considered that the coastal State should be able to participate or to be represented in the project.So my query of the Commonwealth in respect of AC97-1, in accordance with article 7(i) of the treaty and pursuant to article 248 of the UNCLOS treaty, is: has the required six-months notice been given of the proposed operation of Cultus Timor Sea Ltd in respect of area AC97-1? If so, when; if not, why not? The more compelling point comes under `Article 249: Duty to comply with certain conditions'. Some of the duties which 249 provides on a nation state like Australia include the following:(b) provide the coastal State, at its request, with preliminary reports, as soon as practicable, and with the final results and conclusions after the completion of the research;(c) undertake to provide access for the coastal State, at its request, to all data and samples derived from the marine scientific research project and likewise to furnish it with data which may be copied and samples which may be divided without detriment to their scientific value;So the effect of article 249—and that has effect because of article 7 subparagraph (i) of the treaty, which this bill seeks to implement—is that a nation state is required under the UNCLOS article to effectively hand over the results of scientific research. So my question to the Commonwealth is: what obligation, if any, does the Commonwealth believe is imposed on Cultus Timor Sea Ltd to hand over the results of their seismic petroleum exploration to the nation state of Indonesia? That is a very pertinent question because Cultus Timor Sea Ltd acquired that petroleum exploration lease under the provisions of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act at a competitive bid for a price.I do not know that Cultus Timor Sea Ltd were aware at the time that now they may well have certain requirements, when they are in the process of their exploration activity and when they have completed their $1.7 million exploration activity. Presumably, in the normal course of events they would either want to use it themselves to turn a prospective area into a production area or to on-sell it to another petroleum production partner. In other words, the results of their exploration activity on that reading of the treaty have the effect that they are obliged to hand over that material to the Indonesian nation state. That is a plain English reading of the convention. I do not know whether that view is right or wrong. What I do know is that there is no evidence before us which would suggest, firstly, that that view might be wrong or, secondly and more importantly, that it has been properly or seriously considered.In accordance with the government's arrangements for the examination of treaties, this bill was sent to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. The joint standing committee's report raised the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, on pages 21 and 22. The most pertinent question raised in the report, the fourth dot point on page 22, is:. with respect to marine research, whether Australia has a duty to provide to Indonesia all of the information detailed at UNCLOS Article 248 and 249(1)(b), and, importantly, to comply with any or all of the other conditions stipulated at Article 249In the course of the public hearing and evidence to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, representatives of the Attorney-General's Department—and to a lesser extent representatives of the Department of Primary Industries and Energy—asserted without any detail that they have the complete answer to that issue and the question that I have raised. I would like the government to produce the basis on which that view was asserted. It was asserted in the hearings held on 2 September and 28 October that there is a complete answer to that question. I would like to see the basis of that. I think it is important that the Commonwealth provides it because this is, in my view, a live issue which goes to the sovereign rights of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and the rights which Cultus may or may not have as a consequence of this treaty.The Attorney-General's Department in its formal written submissions to the committee, which are submissions Nos 2 and 2A, says at paragraph 19:The Treaty does recognise that the activities of one party in the exercise of its jurisdiction in the area of overlap might affect the activities of the other party in the area of overlap. It provides for such issues to be resolved by co-operation.If you are engaged in seismic research, one of two or three things may well occur. Firstly, someone may suggest that the nature of the seismic research is such that it can disturb the fishery's life. Fisheries are a sovereign right of Indonesia in the column waters. Secondly, someone may suggest that, if you are even overflying and doing exploration activity by laser, the laser may have an adverse consequence on the fishery's life, which is an Indonesian right. Someone might, finally, equally suggest that, if you are out there trawling with a seismic vessel with the streams behind you and you run across an Indonesia fishing vessel, you have impaired their rights. These are serious issues in respect of which the Commonwealth needs to give some answers. (Time expired)21:41:00897Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 relates to the statutory marketing authorities, research development corporations as well as the Fisheries Management Authority. Within the latter, the budget last year removed $3.612 million of the Commonwealth's contribution to the research and development funding component of the FRDC at a time when the fishing industry could least afford to lose that amount of money. We were told that the justification for this was that the FRDC had displayed prudent financial management and that the funds were to be used to offset expenditures elsewhere in fisheries related matters.The original proposal was for the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) to direct the FRDC board to hand back the funds from reserves. It was not until well after the budget that this option was found to be unacceptable. Instead, specific legislation was needed to effect a one-off cut to the FRDC's annual allocation. This is the bill that reached parliament and the government has buried a clause in this amendment bill to effect a cut in the annual allocation. This is unacceptable.As the Deputy Chair of the House Standing Committee on Primary Industry, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs that reported to the parliament in June 1997 in its report entitled Managing Commonwealth fisheries, I am very concerned that this goes completely against the recommendations that we brought down in that report. That was a bipartisan report and it had the full support of government and opposition members, who supported the recommendations. The government has turned turtle and is taking funding away. It is a nonsense action, particularly when the fisheries report spoke of the dwindling supplies of fish and the desperate need for information on fish stocks. The Age on 18 December last year picked this up saying it was a grim outlook for the fishing industry. It stated:The commercial sustainability of some of Australia's most valuable and popular fish—southern blue fin tuna, school shark and gem fish is uncertain as overfishing continues to take its toll on stocks.Not only did our report flag this problem but a Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics fisheries status report in December last year also warned that the numbers of school shark and gem fish are failing to recover from overfishing. Australia's research has shown that the bluefin tuna stocks are dangerously low, yet the Japanese are pushing for more fish and Australia knows that the continuing spawning stock are well below the safe biological limits. We still do not have the full picture. We need to know more about the fishery's capabilities. The report stated:One of the greatest obstacles in effective fisheries management will always be the problems associated with poor knowledge about the marine environment because of the high costs of undertaking all the research that is necessary for the management of fish stocks.We have to set priorities and we have to find ways of ensuring that they are funded. In the recommendations, the committee was clear in saying that, in order to develop a long-term research strategy, it is essential that the funding level be more stable and secure. The committee's recommendation No. 34 stipulates quite clearly that the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation receives its funding on the same basis as other industry and research and development corporations to give greater certainty of funding levels on a year-to-year basis. So the report brought down the recommendations that we should be doing more, we should stabilise research in this area, we should do more research, we should be looking after it, moving it along and making it more stable, but, of course, the government is not doing that.8T4FERGUSONMr Laurie Ferguson—That's too logical.BV5Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMS—As my colleague the member for Reid said, that is too logical. One keeps looking to see what is going to happen next with this government and what next is going to come from this government. In its report, the committee was seeking to have research in the fisheries area increased. So what is the government doing? It is cutting the funds. Today I received in my mail a very nice glossy poster and pamphlet—as, probably, did most other members—from the CSIRO. The message was that 1998 is International Year of the Oceans. And what is this government doing? Cutting funding to the marine environment and to the fishing industry. And the research corporation has been cut. What will this government come up with next?We are saying to one of Australia's major industries, `Yes, we want more research and more input from you to help in the research, but, sorry folks, your funding is cut. You will have to do it all on your own.' What right do we have to ask for information and to ask for some cooperation between fishers and government if we are not going to assist financially in that process?The report identified some major problems in the industry. Many of the submissions to the inquiry told us of bad fishing practices and of difficulties in keeping communications going among the different groups, that is, among researchers, the fishers and the management authorities. The policy statement saw the need for fisheries managers, biologists and economists to join forces and to convey the results of research more effectively so that it goes right down to the industry. Also, we recommended that the information we get from the fishers comes upwards because the fishers know a lot about what goes on out there in the oceans and in the fishing grounds in which many of them have fished for many years—sometimes their fathers have fished there and sometimes their grandfathers have fished there. So it is about utilising the information that people have.How is this to be achieved? If all the expense were thrown back onto the FRDC, it would be really hard to imagine how we are going to achieve many of the recommendations that came down in the report. It really is ironic and bizarre that this cut of over $3,600,000 should come about during the International Year of the Oceans. And at a time when the government is formulating its own ocean policy statement, it is cutting funding to research into the marine environment and the habitats around the coasts.This statement is expected to focus on supporting and advancing efforts to achieve sustainable development within the marine environment—the same objectives as the FRDC program. Apart from having an immediate and significant impact on the amount of fisheries research that can be initiated over the next three years, there will be an adverse secondary impact on the amount of voluntary industry contributions in the future. Recent FRDC estimates suggest that the 60 per cent approval rate for applications for research funds will probably now drop down to around 50 per cent in this coming year because of the budget decision. There will be a lot of people not researching and not doing work they thought they were going to be doing. Of course, the fish stocks, the fishing industry and the marine environment will be the losers from this decision.The cut is seen by industry as a willingness by the federal government to renege on its funding commitments, particularly since the bulk of this money will go into consolidated revenue as a part payment for the cut to the Department of Primary Industries and Energy appropriation. The claim that the FRDC has accumulated reserves so as to allow a reduction in this year's Commonwealth contribution is not true. In fact, the FRDC has accumulated forward commitments of $33 million. If you read page 86 of the FRDC's annual report, there are no reserves identified in its accounts. Even more crazy is the cut of $80,000 to Recfish Australia which assists 4.5 million recreational fishers in this country. There are a lot of people who fish recreationally and Recfish is a body which at least is pulling those people together, gaining information and talking to governments and research organisations.We should encourage this process because recreational fishers have an impact on fish stocks. We need to know what sort of impact they have so that we can put that into the management tools we have for managing fish stocks. That is very rational, but this government is not rational. What will be next? They cut $80,000 from Recfish. This industry—and it is a huge industry, generating billions of dollars in the domestic market—is one of the most difficult on which to collect information. It is vitally important that these people are included in the management plans prepared for fisheries because they do, as I said, have an enormous impact on fish stocks.No wonder Recfish are desperate to point out—as they did in a letter that I received the other day—that any claim that the Natural Heritage Trust or the oceans policy are substitutes for this funding is not acceptable in any argument that may be put forward. They are urgently arguing that the funding for the FRDC be increased, not decreased. We have here a government that puts the budget bottom line before anything else. It does not care what it does to industry or what effects there are on the long-term economic health of any industry. The government slashes and burns, as long as it saves a dollar in the budget and as long as it can use its silly black hole political arguments. The government will use anything along those lines. It does not really care what it does to the long-term viability of any industry or any environment.This government is determined to abandon fisheries to its own devices because it does not fit into the neat little packages that the National Party has set up for the other primary producers. This one is not really in the family so it does not matter. It can be pushed out and ripped about. It is really interesting when you look at that structure. This part of the bill must be opposed and I will be opposing it.When the committee brought down its report Managing Commonwealth fisheries: the last frontier last year, one of our many recommendations dealt with the management authority and some of the MACs—the management groups of different fisheries. We received evidence that people thought that conflicts of interest could arise. The government should act in that regard. The government or the management authority should draw up a register so that people understand who is there helping to make some of these decisions. The process should be kept transparent and people should be kept involved in the decision making so they do not become concerned and think that someone is getting an advantage over them, commercially or whatever.I received a letter from somebody who wants to be involved in a new multi-billion dollar fishery that is being developed in the Southern Ocean, south of Tasmania. They want to be part of that, but there is nothing happening. They are concerned that licences will be issued. They are concerned that they may be left out of the decision making process because government has not acted on concerns about the conflict of interest. Some time has passed and the government has not acted, as it has not acted on many of the other recommendations that we brought down in our report.The government should get on and do what it has been elected to do—and that is to govern. But, other than introducing bills like this one which takes research funds away from the marine environment, away from research into fish stocks, it certainly is not governing. But this is the road that this government is travelling. This government is not in there doing much leading. This government is concerned about the budget bottom line and not much else. I suppose we cannot expect much else from the government.We must oppose this bill. The shadow minister has foreshadowed some amendments, and we should support those. The whole thing should be rejected and redrafted to increase, not decrease, the funding that will go to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Although this is the International Year of the Oceans, the government is cutting funding to the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. This is a really strange thing for a government to do, but this government has done it. I will be supporting the amendments and opposing this bill.21:59:00900O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 now before the House is an omnibus bill that seeks to make amendments to legislation governing several areas of the primary industry portfolio. Many amendments to legislation are proposed in this bill. One has already been canvassed here, and that is the amendment that seeks to remove the requirement for the minister to approve the terms and conditions of the employment of principal employees in statutory authorities and research and development corporations, placing the responsibility entirely with individual organisations for the appointment of those personnel, the conditions under which they will work and the remuneration that they will receive. As the shadow minister has indicated, we intend to oppose this measure. He has foreshadowed amendments to that effect.One amendment being proposed in this legislation relates to the Australian Horticultural Corporation Act 1987. The proposed government amendment seeks to remove the export trading powers of the Australian Horticultural Corporation. An amendment is also proposed to the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980. That amendment seeks to insert regulation making powers into sections 40D and 40F of that act. There is also an amendment to section 33 of the Dairy Produce Act which prohibits a person who turns 65 from being appointed as the government member of the Australian Dairy Corporation.There are some consequential amendments to the tax assessment acts relating to the farm household support scheme. The amendments that have excited the interest of the honourable member for Lyons (Mr Adams), who preceded me in this debate, relate to the Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act 1989 and to the fisheries industry. That is an issue which the shadow minister has taken a keen interest in, and he has already foreshadowed the opposition's amendments to what the government is proposing in this bill.We are particularly concerned about two areas of this legislation. The first relates to the amendment which seeks to remove the requirement for the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy to approve the terms and conditions of employment of principal employees in statutory corporations. The effect of this amendment is to remove ministerial responsibility for these appointments. It removes the ministerial oversight of appointments to these organisations.Nobody should be under any illusions: the present Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) is not considered a heavyweight as far as cabinet discussions are concerned. I will certainly take that point up in further discussion on what is being proposed in the fisheries research area. The minister also seeks to shovel out his responsibilities in his portfolio whenever he can. I think this is a fairly good example of this minister in action. He is seeking to handpass—to use Australian Rules parlance—his responsibilities to oversee and to have some input in the appointment of chief executive officers of these public and industry bodies.There is significant public investment in many of the research and development corpo rations particularly. That investment is undertaken either by the Commonwealth or by the states in concert with the industry, which pays levies to research and development corporations. We need to understand that public moneys are at stake in these organisations—although perhaps not in the statutory authorities these days, as most of them are funded by industry levies—but particularly the research and development corporations, where the Commonwealth makes a sizeable contribution to the financial viability of those corporations.On this side of the House, we are of the view that where substantial public moneys are involved the buck stops at the minister. The best way that the minister can effect an oversight of the expenditures of these public moneys is to have oversight of the appointment of the people to whom we entrust these public moneys to carry out their appointed tasks. At the end of the day, the government is accountable for the performance of these bodies.One element of that accountability is effected through the ministerial oversight of the key appointments of chief executive officers. Alas, this minister, lacking in leadership and any real sense of responsibility to the portfolio he administers, seeks to handpass that responsibility through an amendment to the legislation we are debating tonight.Other members of the opposition who have preceded me in this debate have spoken very strongly on the second matter which will be the subject of the shadow minister's foreshadowed amendments. That relates to the government's intention to take $3.6 million out of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation in 1997-98, using some of that money for structural adjustment purposes elsewhere in the fishing industry. However, as we know, some of that $3.6 million will be returned to general revenue. That is an extraordinary situation. Here we are in 1998 with many government members representing provincial, rural and regional coastal constituencies, yet this sort of measure is being proposed. I will speak more about why that is so.The previous speaker in this debate, the member for Lyons, was a member of the House of Representatives inquiry into the management of Commonwealth fisheries. He indicated that that inquiry found that an increased research effort was needed in Australian fisheries. Why? Because many of our ocean and inland fisheries are in a parlous state due to bad management practices in the past. There is an urgent need to increase our knowledge of our national fisheries so that we can effectively plan their sustainable development in the future.As I have stated, past exploitation of our fisheries and those resources has left many of them in a parlous state. The simple reality is that, if the fisheries are not managed in a sustainable way, we will not have an industry and we will not have all that goes with it—the investment to drive new value adding opportunities, the employment opportunities in regional and coastal towns and cities that depend on this industry and will into the future, and the development and application of new technologies and skills in those regional communities.Let us be in no doubt whatsoever as to the importance of this industry to regional coastal communities. Around 80 per cent of Australians live in urban environments and most of our population is concentrated in cities and towns situated in coastal environments. The fishing industry is an important source of food for the citizens of those towns and cities. The effective management of our coastal fisheries is vitally important in securing the long-term food supply for those people. Research and development is essential to increase our knowledge of our fisheries and to guarantee in the long term that important food supply.The industry is an important source of employment for people in those regional communities. There is employment generated not only in the catch itself but also downstream in value adding and processing opportunities. All of these communities seek to develop these opportunities further in the hope of expanding employment. This industry is also an important source of export income. There are huge overseas markets which are opening up for the products of this industry. The member for Lyons, who preceded me in this debate, has been one of the strongest supporters of the fishing industry. He appreciates the importance of this industry to his state as an important generator of employment for Tasmania. The member for Lyons is a very generous man and every year he holds several functions. I do not know whether you have ever been to them—YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—No.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—The honourable member for Maranoa should take himself along to them; they are really gastronomical experiences. They are based around the fine seafood that is produced in the state of Tasmania—the smoked salmon and the tuna. I commend the honourable member for Lyons: he really leaves no stone unturned and lets no opportunity pass to promote the fishing industry of Tasmania.K26LATHAMMr Latham—He practises what he preaches.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—He practises what he preaches. Therefore, when he comes into this House and he expresses concern about what the government is doing to fisheries research in this country, I think we ought to take him seriously. The member for Lyons knows the importance of this industry not only to Tasmania but to this nation and he knows its capacity to generate export income from smoked salmon and tuna. I understand that soon there will be mackerel exports—a whole range of seafood. It is an industry that is dependent on the effective management of the resource. You do not have an industry if you do not effectively manage the resource. You cannot effectively manage the resource without a knowledge of the fisheries and you do not increase your knowledge of the fisheries if you do not have an extensive investment in research and development.Even the member for Maranoa can understand the logic of what I am saying. Yet here, as a National Party member, he is going along with the Liberal majority in the cabinet to take $3.6 million out of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation's budget. I do not like using the word `steal', and I will not use it here tonight in this debate, but it is an extraordinary situation when the government says, `Oh, well, this is a corporation that is flush with dough. We'll just rip out $3.6 million of that. We'll shunt some sideways this way into a structural adjustment package and then we'll shunt this bit the other way into general revenue for the sake of the budget deficit.' I am at a loss to understand why the minister has taken this action. I have reflected very hard on why he has done so and why so many Liberal and National Party members who represent coastal constituencies have gone along for the ride. It really constitutes another betrayal of rural and regional communities.I can only speculate and suggest some of the reasons. The first is that the government has research and development very low on its list of priorities. We all know that that is the case because, in its successive budgets, it has reduced the research and development effort in this country not only in the fisheries area but across a broad range of areas in our economy. It has slashed the 150 per cent R&D concession. Manufacturing and rural industries are still smarting over that stupid measure by the government. It has a history of broken promises in the research and development area. You do not have to be a young Einstein to know that Australia's competitive edge can be sustained only by a massive research and development effort. That effort applies not only to the smaller industries but to the larger industries.This is a government with no industry policy. It has run down Australia's education system, it is laying waste the skills of the nation through its failure on the unemployment front and it has withdrawn basic government support for industry services to assist many of these industries to survive in very harsh global environments that Australian industry encounters at this time.There is a second reason the minister has taken this action. This is not an industry that is very powerful within the primary industries portfolio. It is not as powerful as wheat or wool, so the minister really does not want to stick up for the fishing industry in his portfolio.The third reason—and this is a really important one because it reflects on the minister and his contribution to primary industry and this portfolio since he has had control of it—relates to the minister's weakness when the Treasurer (Mr Costello) attempts to steal funds from various other portfolio areas. I would have hoped that the minister would have stood up to the Treasurer and said, `No. This is one very important industry. We are not going to raid its reserves. We are not going to raid its budget. I'm going to stick up for this industry.'We know the spurious reasons why this measure has been taken. It is here in a letter by Senator Warwick Parer, the Minister for Resources and Energy, to Dr Russell Reichelt, the chairman of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation. Senator Parer said:We had to reduce our contribution to the FRDC to help offset high priority measures such as the adjustment program, and to help pull back the Budget deficit.We all know what a spurious argument that is—pulling back the budget deficit!There was a very simple solution to Australia's budget deficit when the government came to power in 1996. All it had to do was emulate the average growth rate that Labor engineered in the four years before Labor went out of office. If it were able to engineer that particular level of growth—four per cent, 4.25 per cent, 4.5 per cent—there would have been an automatic adjustment on the budget that would have, in the main, wiped out any apparent deficit that was there.But the logic of that proposition did not dawn on the Treasurer and it certainly was beyond his capabilities. This overrated, urbane lawyer could not even match Labor's performance over the previous four years. What a sad indictment on an arrogant Treasurer who parades himself here as the paragon of virtue as far as tax reform and budget deficits are concerned. He could not even achieve in two years a level of growth that Labor left him with from the previous four years. Yet this is the reason that has been given by government ministers for this unseemly raid on the resources of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.There are threats and dangers to the survival of this industry—overfishing of the resource, disease within our fisheries and poaching by international fishers. We can now add another threat to the industry's survival—the Howard government. (Time expired)22:19:00904Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELLCF4KalgoorlieIND00—In this hotchpotch of amendments that is the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 , I think the government is to be congratulated for not seeking repayment of loans incurred under the farm household support scheme. There is enough crisis and trauma in the bush, and these are a few crumbs off the table in recognition of those circumstances. I think the government needs to be commended for that.I want to talk tonight mainly about the South-East Trawl Fishery. The fishery is a very important electorate issue for me, with one-third of Australia's coastline in my electorate, and I am reasonably familiar with the South-East Trawl. The member for Corio (Mr O'Connor) said that he could not understand why the minister has acted this way. I am surprised at that, because it is quite clear why the minister has acted this way. The minister is a fool. Unfortunately, he is the most dangerous sort of fool, because he is a suave, articulate, plausible fool, and they are the worst. This is well known in National Party circles, I might add.People have spoken here tonight about the threat to the industry. There is no threat to the stock in the South-East Trawl. In fact, the quotas are set on historic quotas and they have not been reduced except in respect of two species: the gem and the orange roughie. They are the only two species that have had any reduction in catch.You have to actually understand what is going on here. This is probably the most over-regulated fishery in the whole of Australia. When the government changed, the industry thought, `Now is our chance to get some sense. Now commonsense will prevail.' But they tell me—and as late as tonight I have been speaking to people in the South-East Trawl—that the over-regulation and the imposed costs have increased dramatically under the Howard government, and people who have been fishing for two and three decades now simply cannot sustain it, and they are going out of the industry.When they were looking at the reduction—there were 147 licences in this fishery, I think—they came up with some sums and found a minimum of $6 million was needed for restructuring. As we see, they got $1½ million. It is interesting that, in 1995-96, the industry itself paid in its fisheries levies $1.8 million. So the industry was making a fairly substantial contribution.We have all this lamenting about threats to the fish stock, but what does the industry do to its regulation? One of the things it does is force people who are trawling to throw back all the bycatch. If they are trawling for a nominated species and they catch something else, they have to throw it back. If they are pulling that from, say, better than 150 fathoms, there will be 100 per cent death of those fish. There will be no survivors; all the fish will die. From shallower levels, you will get some survivors but there will be enormous mortality; you will be lucky if you get 20 or 30 per cent survival. If they are coming from deep water, every fish will die, yet these fishermen are forced to pull the cod in, drop it all back in the water and let it float away in a stream. And people talk about depletion of the fishing industry. Just imagine the effect this has on fish stocks and the income of fishermen.There is another part of the absurd regulation. For reasons which the fisheries department have unofficially said were to impede the fishing effort, they regulated that, if you set out to trawl (you have to nominate on your log that you are going to trawl) and you then steam out for four hours, but when you get there you find that the swell is running too strong, you have a south-west wind and you cannot trawl, you then have to steam four hours back, take off your trawl gear and put on your line gear—you cannot sail with your line gear on as well. If you could, you could go and do something else if you could not trawl. So you sail another four hours back, and in the course of a day that is 16 hours travelling time. The cost, the bureaucracy, is just enormous. It is true that this is not being enforced. Fisheries have said, `We won't enforce it.' If they will not enforce it, why do they have the legislation? It is because one day they will.The truth, which is not generally understood in the Australian psyche yet, is this: just as the agenda of the Greens is to close down the pastoralists who do marginal farming in Australia, so the pastoralists will come under increasing attack in this country and the entire frontbenches of the government and the opposition will support it. `We do not need the pastoral industry,' they will say; they will be happy to close it down to placate the Greens. Just as that is happening there, it is also happening in the fishing industry. All these people insinuating themselves into government departments are in fact de facto Greens. There is no threat to this industry. It is just enormously overregulated. There is no threat, bar the threat posed by government.The fishermen are adamant that their costs have substantially increased under the Howard government. This government had every opportunity to reduce the costs—and the fishing industry had faith it was going to reduce them—but it has gone the other way. If there is no threat to fish stocks in the industry—and the evidence is overwhelming that there is not—what is the point of it? Where is the benefit to Australia? There simply is none. But we find the government saying to us, `You're not competitive. You can't compete against New Zealand imports.' With those sorts of imposts, how can anyone compete? Left to their own devices, Australian fishermen are as efficient as anyone in the same sorts of circumstances.It really is an indictment of this urban based attitude that has developed in Australia. It is city dominated, and governments of all persuasions—the Lib-Labs—are city dominated. The truth is that Sydney puts an enormous distortion into Australian politics. The numbers are so great. If you look on that side of the chamber, you will see the members from around Sydney. They all have to be placated, of course. That is why—just diverging, Mr Deputy Speaker—the opposition's Wik bill is so wishy-washy: it is to placate those bleeding hearts from Sydney.As I have said before, one of these days we will have to nuke Sydney in the national interest. That is the only thing that I can see which will ensure national survival.K26LATHAMMr Latham—Can you notify me when that happens?CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—You will get no notice whatsoever. Actually, you will be all right because we will be leaving the western suburbs pretty much alone—a little neutron bomb right in the centre, I think.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The honourable member for Kalgoorlie might stick to the subject of the bill.CF4Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CAMPBELL—I thought it was very germane, actually. We are also talking tonight about recreational fishing. The truth is that recreational fishing is an enormous industry. It is enjoyed by so many people. It is said, I believe on good authority, that God does not detract from man's allotted time the time he spends fishing. If that is so, that is a big encouragement to get out there and fish.The stress put on the industry by recreational fishermen is self-limiting. When the fish get very scarce, the fish go somewhere else. We should be doing what is done in other countries—that is, putting in artificial reefs to encourage pelagic fish and breeding fish, putting fish back into the ocean. This can be done very simply and very economically. That is the way you handle these things because recreational fishing is such an important industry for the community at large. You do not do it by continual regulation or by stopping people from fishing, because it is their right to fish. In my view, it is the divine right of every man and every woman—men of both sexes is probably the easiest way to say it—to fish.It is so clear that, with very little effort, you can put into place fish breeding programs which will put an enormous number of young fish back into the ocean, and they can be put in at an age when the greatest threat to them has passed—that is, when they are very small. The cost of that is actually quite small and is much more sensible than this mad demand for more and more regulation.This industry is an important one. If you could take away the crushing burden of government intervention, this could be a thriving industry which would benefit the entire community. The jobs it would create, the wealth it would create and the feeling of wellbeing it would engender in the nation are what we desperately need, but it has been crushed, not through a lack of fish, not through overfishing, but through blind, mindless government bureaucracy. It is time that we took a very hard look at what we are doing in these areas and made a decision to be proactive in ensuring that the industry survives.Today, as I said, I was talking to people who say that after 30 years they are being driven out, not through a lack of fish but through government interference, the government imposts. We are seeing this developing in society more and more as Australia breaks up into a growing dichotomy between city and urban Australia. This nation will not survive where the major culture has divided against itself on a city/country basis, but that is happening; and it is being assisted by government action. It does not matter if you change the government. It is so entrenched in that bureaucracy now that it will go on happening.This has to be recognised by the people of Australia because, if you kill the country, if you kill these rural industries, eventually the cities die too. They do not die immediately—it takes a while—but they die too because there is not a city in Australia that lives on its intrinsic wealth. They all live on the wealth of the hinterland. These are very important industries to us. It is very easy for people in the cities to think that they are insulated from this. It is very easy for them to think that they can exercise this power, can stop recreational fishing, can stop the fishing industry and can stop the pastoral industry and think it will have no repercussions. Ultimately, it will have repercussions, and they will feel the brunt of it. By the time they do, it will be too late because the country will be dead and, once the country is dead, it will not be revived.Adjournment90610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being almost 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn. 90622:30:00906Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—There are three quick issues that I want to raise tonight in the time that I have before me. The first is to draw the attention of honourable members to the 6 March edition of Inside Canberra , in particular the central parts of that document at pages 2 and 3, where there is an excellent insight provided into some of the problems confronting small business at the moment, particularly in respect of the imminent imposition, if this government gets its way, of a GST.It says that there are big holes in the retail tenancy laws that have been proposed by this government in response to the Bruce Reid report on issues affecting retail tenants, and that in Victoria the minister has seen fit not to wait for what she believes is going to be a never-ending story when it comes to retail tenancy legislation at a national level and has decided to put her own in place.All honourable members should turn their attention to this publication, Inside Canberra. It does provide an excellent overview of the concerns of small business and mirrors what I have been saying and the information which I have been picking up as I have gotten around and listened to genuine small businesses—and not been caught down on Webb Dock, trying to sort out the problems there, as the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) obviously is attempting to do, with very little success.The second issue that I want to touch on is to lend my support, as I am sure the honourable member for Hughes (Mrs Vale) will, to the proposal for a super train to link Sydney with Canberra, but via Wollongong. It is a proposal for a Maglev super train which has been advanced by Transrapid Consortium Australia. What is of great concern to me is that it is one of three proposals being advanced to link Sydney and Canberra with this new super train technology which potentially will provide enormous economic benefit for the people of the Illawarra. It was recently announced that the high speed train, if suc cessful, which of course would link Sydney with Wollongong in 24 minutes at more than 400 kilometres per hour, would use the product of BHP Port Kembla steel production in its manufacture. That, of course, would give a tremendous fillip to an industry which at the present moment is experiencing resignations at the very highest levels of the company and has concerns over its future in terms of the viability of steelmaking, and it would be of great support to the Illawarra.I want to lend my support as the local member representing Wollongong here in the national parliament, along with my friend the member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and the member for Hughes (Mrs Vale)—and would hope that the Howard government lends its support as well—to this particular proposal out of the three that are being advanced. It would be a tremendous boon for the Illawarra. The job creation potential would be extraordinary and the end product, of course, would be of great benefit not only to local residents but to people from New South Wales and overseas.The third and final issue is to bring to the attention of the House an absolutely disgraceful situation involving one of my constituents. In a letter I have received from a Mrs S.M. Jones of 2 Neville Avenue, Russell Vale, she writes:My husband and I are both pensioners. I am writing to ask if you can assist my husband in any way possible to obtain his new dentures. He has been waiting for over a year. His teeth, at the moment, are glued together with Super Glue, which makes his mouth very sore and he has difficulty in eating.I think most members in this place would be absolutely disgusted that, because of cutbacks in the Commonwealth dental health program imposed by the Howard government in its mean-spirited approach to looking after the elderly in this country, we would have a circumstance like my constituent, Mr Jones, having to put up with having his teeth superglued in his mouth so that he could just eat. Because, in typical fashion, the government has passed the buck to the state government to try and pick up the costs associated with this, we find that the department of health cannot put him on the waiting list and it is probably going to be at least another 12 months before he makes the priority list.What sort of compassion is that by a government that purports to look after the elderly? It is a disgrace. I am asking the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) to look sympathetically at this particular case. I will be writing to him. It is the sort of thing that shows the mean-spiritedness not only of the minister, but certainly also of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and his government in terms of health care, aged care and aged policy. We need to see some compassion in this case. We need to see some compassion in the dental health system generally. It is about time that this minister, instead of kicking to death his state colleagues for health, as he has done today, put some money back into the system. (Time expired)90722:35:00907Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—The debate on Sydney's airport needs continues to arouse a lot of heat. Last December the EIS on Badgerys Creek was released, and then in January the auditor's report was produced by SMEC. Needless to say, those two reports have generated a considerable reaction within the local community, and I am sure the member for Greenway (Mr Mossfield) would agree with that. The pent-up anxiety of local residents was released in a flood after the release of those documents. Some of that was really rather exaggerated, but a lot of those concerns were very well founded and quite justified.The EIS and the parallel audit show two things very clearly. They show, firstly, that this government has delivered on its promise to conduct a fully transparent EIS, and that is in stark contrast to the policies of the Labor Party. Before the last election, the then Labor government was not even going to offer an EIS until the coalition promised it would do an EIS and then, kicking and screaming, Labor promised that they would finally come on board and conduct an EIS as well.The parallel audit process on this EIS was the first time in Australia that any government has commissioned an independent parallel audit on an EIS process. It is the first time that that process has been published, that the audit report has been published and opened to further community scrutiny and consultation, and it is the first time that a government has committed itself to taking on board the recommendations of that audit and to then adjust the EIS process according to findings of that audit process—an independent, transparent and thorough EIS.The second thing that the EIS and audit process showed is this: it does raise considerable doubts about Badgerys Creek airport. The EIS itself shows that there are problems with aircraft noise, that there are problems with air quality, and there are problems with transport links. Particularly significant were the problems with air quality in western Sydney. The EIS shows that western Sydney is already at maximum levels of ozone and that the construction of an airport there would probably lead to a 25 to 30 per cent increase in ozone levels in western Sydney.Furthermore, the audit process conducted by SMEC shows that there were significant shortcomings in the EIS process and that there was insufficient attention given to the impact on surface drainage system, particularly the Hawkesbury-Nepean system. It showed that waste disposal issues were not adequately covered, that there was a lack of rigour in the economic analysis, and that there was inadequate analysis of the social impact. The pleasing thing is that the minister has committed himself to taking on board those concerns raised by the independent audit. They will be looked at and the EIS process will continue to look at those issues.This again is a sharp contrast to Labor's position. You remember that before the last election the then minister, now the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton), said that the Badgerys Creek airport would go ahead regardless of the EIS—in other words, we will do an EIS, sure; then we will ignore it and push ahead regardless of what it says, regardless of what the residents want. At least this government has said that we will address the issues raised in the EIS, we will address the issues raised in the audit report and we will then consider it further.The Hobart conference of the Labor Party certainly gave no assurance to the people of western Sydney. In fact, it was a con job pure and simple. It was a two bob each way bet. The Labor Party said, `Sure, we are still committed to having a second airport in the Sydney Basin, but we will not quite say it will be at Badgerys Creek. It will be somewhere else in the Sydney Basin.' It is obvious that the Labor Party was trying to treat the people of western Sydney as fools. If it is not going to be at Badgerys Creek but they still want it in the Sydney Basin, where in the world do they think they are going to put it? That whole process was a cynical exercise by the Labor Party to try to con the people of western Sydney again.The EIS on the Badgerys Creek proposal and the audit report have made it very clear that there are doubts about the Badgerys Creek site. Those doubts are significant enough to have to think again. Those doubts are significant enough to say that Badgerys Creek is not the location for another airport, and to say that we need to look for an alternative. It is simply not fair to the residents of western Sydney to transfer the problems of inner city to the people of the west. It is time to think again.90822:40:00908Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise in this adjournment debate to express my concern about the forced closure of the Blacktown skillshare office and the alternative steps being put in place by the federal government to provide employment services in my electorate. This skillshare office has worked for the people of Blacktown and surrounding areas for 20 years in the task of providing training for our young and not so young unemployed people. The office is now to be reduced to about three people who will only be looking after the JPET program for the next few months. I am concerned about the loss of the talents of the team leader, Roger Mahey, and his team of experienced staff who have performed a great job for the Blacktown community.I am rather surprised at this government's attack on the skillshare organisation. My sources tell me—in fact, it has been well reported—that many government backbenchers were appreciative of the role played by skillshare in assisting unemployed people with job applications, search and interview skills in their own particular electorates. I know from my own experience of attending graduation ceremonies the tremendous feeling of pride and self-esteem that graduates experience on successfully completing skillshare programs. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott) has on a number of occasions expressed strong support for skillshare.The community based board of the Blacktown group, called Work Place, have over the years endured some ups and downs but this recent experience is the most down they have ever endured. For them to be faced with the need to so quickly reduce staff of such quality has been very traumatic for them. The Work Place, in good faith, lodged an application to be part of the new employment program. They have the skills and the obvious expertise and the willingness. More importantly, the office site is centrally situated to perform this service. What they got was no reply. I sent the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) an urgent letter by fax seeking more advice and/or comment to enable the board to make winding up decisions if that was necessary. I did not get an acknowledgment of my letter. The board was therefore required to assume it would wind up its skillshare operation and valuable staff have been given notice to quit in the next couple of weeks.The minister goes on TV lauding his new and wonderful privatised employment service, yet pays little regard to the valuable resources that he has so unceremoniously dumped on the job market. The federal government's new privatised employment services have not got off to a very good start in my electorate, although I admit the information at this stage is very sketchy. The CES people have been reasonably helpful. However, there is no official confirmation as to how the service will operate post privatisation. I am advised that the CES office in Blacktown will close on 28 March and there will only be a limited service provider until 1 May, when Employment National is due to begin. I am further advised that when Employment National does commence at a venue yet to be announced, it will have a staff of five compared to the previous staff of 20.The private providers who have successfully tendered for the Blacktown area—Hospitality Horizons, CSA Training Services and Teldraw—are all still looking for premises in the area. I wish them luck. While I am sure that the Salvation Army, Mission Employment and indeed skillshare, if they had been successful in bidding for the employment program, would do a good job, I am not so sure about the commercial operators. I believe bringing the profit motive into placing unemployed people in jobs will remove the caring aspect and lay the foundation for the scheme to be abused by profit motive operators. Indeed, some of the biggest commercial employment placement firms, including Manpower Australia and Morgan and Banks, said that they would not put in a tender, describing the terms as `uncommercial'.We on this side of the House believe there is going to be an overall drop in the level of assistance to the unemployed. We are concerned about the effect on special groups, in particular disadvantaged job seekers. The debate should be about people and jobs. The bean counters of Treasury should be relegated out of the whole debate. But this mean-spirited government is about money and profit and seems not to have any real feeling for the people they are hurting but are claiming to help.90922:45:00909Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—A couple of months ago the honourable member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) was looking around for an issue. Her stocks were arguably at an all-time low. What did she come up with? She came up with the so-called Multilateral Agreement on Investment, the MAI. She in fact regurgitated some of her views in this place yesterday. There has been a lot of discussion, debate and debate on an urgency motion in the Senate on the same issue.What did she come up with? She talked about secret deals by the Howard government, shadowy figures in the dark corridors of the OECD in Paris and all the extreme views that you would expect to originate from the League of Rights. That is where a lot of these comments are coming from. Members on both sides of the House would accept that there are people genuinely concerned about what the MAI may or may not bring. But both the member for Oxley and, I have to say, as late as today, her soul mate, or her sole mate, over the other side, the member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) has got on the same bandwagon. Of course, both have got it quite wrong. They are driving a parochial issue obviously for political ends. What the member for Oxley has said is unsubstantiated. It is unresearched and is clearly politically motivated.The government has indicated that it wants an open debate on this issue. As of last Thursday afternoon the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) referred this particular matter to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which I chair. Members of both sides of the House in this and the other place look forward to having an objective review of what that MAI may or may not mean in terms of what is being proposed and what is being discussed by this government and what was proposed by the previous government from 1995. We will be advertising in this weekend's national press for submissions from anybody who is interested. Submissions will close on 30 April. The committee is required to provide an interim report to the Minister for Foreign Affairs by 25 May.I take the opportunity to refute the rubbish that the member for Oxley and the member for Kalgoorlie are both putting around. It is scaring people. I notice that the member for Kalgoorlie in his press release earlier today talked about a draft treaty on indigenous matters. Let me point out to the member for Kalgoorlie that it is not a treaty. It is a draft declaration which has not even been considered by this government and is of non-treaty status. Before he starts he wants to get his facts right on that and the MAI.We look forward to having a series of public hearings around Australia on this subject. I think it will generate a lot of interest. I take the opportunity this evening to issue a challenge to the member for Oxley. If she wants to make her points, I challenge her to appear before the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and then we will see whether she can differentiate fact from the One Nation fiction.91022:50:00910Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—I rise tonight in the adjournment debate to announce that New Zealand will be purchasing an extra Anzac frigate. As a former minister for defence you, Mr Speaker, will find it somewhat strange that an opposition backbencher can make such an announcement, but there is no doubt it is true. It was effectively announced last week by the New Zealand minister.I draw the attention of the House to his press release and his speech of 4 March at Whangarei in which he talked about the fact that New Zealand currently earns about $70 million a year from defence work, mainly on Anzac frigates. He said that New Zealand won the contract to provide the two modules for ships seven, eight, nine and 10. He said they were in competition with Newcastle, New South Wales, which surprised us because we were not able to bid for it. This means they will have total earnings of about $130 million or $25 million to $30 million in additional earnings in that economy. He then goes on to say that if the government should decide to order another Anzac frigate, ship No. 11, then that will mean even more work.He then presents an argument as to why they should order an extra vessel. Throughout the speech there are clear indications that the New Zealand government is about to sign up for an extra ship. I am happy about that. The contract in August 1989 was for eight vessels for Australia and two for New Zealand, with the option of up to two more at the same price. From recollection those option dates have been extended somewhat, but it is clear that New Zealand is about to bite the bullet and order the extra vessels. From our point of view as a country that is healthy. Why are they doing it? They are doing it because they have been given a big bonus. They have been given an extra $30 million worth of work as a sweetener.The shifting of this module work from the Hunter to New Zealand—and the minister said that they won it in competition with Newcastle when Newcastle was not even allowed to tender for it—is clearly not an economic matter. The fact that the yard will need to spend $3 million, 10 per cent of the earnings, in making itself ready to do the work indicates that it is not competitive. What it does show is that this government is deceitful.I draw the attention of the House, and your's in particular, Mr Speaker, to the Senate estimates committee Hansard of 10 October 1989. Dr Malcolm McIntosh, the then head of defence purchasing—you will recall Malcolm, Mr Speaker, he went to England to head defence procurement for the British government—was questioned in some detail by then Senator Baume about the potential for ship building despite what had been put forward by the tenderers. At page 333 of that Hansard Dr McIntosh stated:We have not had a proposition to shift any of those bits. If a very large bit, modules for example, were proposed to be taken out of Newcastle, then the view of the Government would have to sought at that time.Senator Baume said, `Wouldn't that mean you can move it to the cheapest location?' Dr McIntosh said, `That, in the end, is what it comes down to, because under any contract you can do that; it's up to the customer.' He continued:If the supplier proposes some change it is up to the customer whether he or she accepts it or not, and it is up to the Government.In other words, the contract that was signed required the government's approval to move work from location to location. That approval has obviously been given, and given months ago, otherwise tenders would have been called for last year. We hear this not from our minister, not from our government, but from the New Zealand minister, as a sweetener, to soften up his public, in order to change attitudes so that there will be support for the extra expenditure, offset by the increased earnings.What this government has done—and I do not doubt it was discussed with the New Zealand Prime Minister—is to say to New Zealand, `Look, buy the extra ship and we'll give you $30 million worth of extra work, plus the extra on that ship as well.' Where will it come from? From the electorate of Paterson, from Tomago, and not a word about it. The Minister for Defence (Mr McLachlan) has been silent for the last week, the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin) denies any knowledge of it, and this kind of sleazy deal has gone on. It is a disgrace to this parliament. (Time expired).91122:55:00911Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—Last Saturday, 7 March, in front of a gathering of about 100 people, I had the singular privilege and pleasure of opening the sealed strip of the aerodrome at White Cliffs. I wish I had the words to convey adequately what a great day this was and just how important this event was to the people of White Cliffs and the surrounding district. Above all else, it means that, no matter what the weather conditions are like from now on, they will at least have a transport link to the outside world.Over 99 per cent of the rest of Australia, I guess, takes for granted their bitumen roads and airstrips, but that is not the case at White Cliffs. In the early 1970s there were at least three occasions when the road was cut, the strip was too wet and the town was isolated for periods of up to three weeks. In 1988, the Royal Flying Doctor Service aeroplane was bogged on the strip. This does not happen very often in a town that has a nine-inch annual rainfall; nevertheless, the sealing of the strip will give great peace of mind to the citizens of that town and to the surrounding land holders.I particularly congratulate Di Hoffman, the President of the White Cliffs Community Association, for her organisation of the event on the day and for helping, along with her team, to prepare the meal at the community hall afterwards. I congratulate Councillor Graham Wellings and his wife Maxine, who run the White Cliffs Motel. Graham has put out the flares alongside the old dirt strip for much of the last 30- to 40-odd years during which the dirt strip has been open. I also congratulate the Central Darling Shire, particularly Mayor Robert King, from Wilcannia, who was there, and Deputy Mayor Clive Linnett and his wife Fay, who had driven up from Ivanhoe—the best part of 300 kilometres—to be there for the occasion.The shire has invested much money and used the interest over the years to finance the $200,000 needed to seal the strip and the $100,000-odd to seal the road out from the town to the aerodrome. There were also two pipers there from the Cameron Pipe Band from Broken Hill. Pilot Blue Scott and parachutist Doug Knowles put on a great display of skydiving.David Jackson, from Caradoc Station nearby, gave a gyrocopter display which was watched with great interest. He has a property of 135,000 acres, and runs Collinsville blood sheep. He has a $20,000 gyrocopter, which saves him employing another man on his property. It has a Rotax Austrian 80-horsepower engine, with 26-foot span aluminium blades on top. He is in this gyrocopter for up to five hours a day. He told me that in a couple of hours he can do the equivalent of half to one day's work, checking fence lines, mustering sheep, spotting feral goats, and those sorts of jobs. The gyrocopter uses only 13 litres of fuel an hour. A person can fly it after 15 hours tuition, on average. It is revolutionising pastoral practice in remote Australia.I also spoke to Don Campbell, who is the chief RFDS pilot there, and his lovely wife Denise. He flies into White Cliffs on average about twice every three weeks and he would probably have an emergency flight into White Cliffs about once every six weeks. He told me that a King Air, under another pilot, had recently got bogged at the Hungerford airstrip when turning around at the end of the strip. The propellers came within two inches of the dirt strip. Had they touched the dirt strip, it would have cost $300,000 to overhaul each engine. But that amount of money alone could seal the strip at Hungerford. I note that it is not only Hungerford which does not have its strip sealed yet; also, Menindee does not, Louth does not, and only part of the Tilpa strip is sealed. So there is still a lot of work to be done. White Cliffs, for those who do not know, is about 1,100 kilometres from Sydney and is 122 metres above sea level. Opals were discovered there in 1880. The township was established in 1890. In 1897, there were about 1,000 people living there. There are only about 200 there today. They produced £140,000 of opal in 1902. Bill O'Reilly, the famous spin bowler, was born there on 20 December 1905. Electricity was connected only four years ago.There is great spirit in the town. They hold an annual dinner-dance, which I usually attend, to raise money for the RFDS. It is amazing that it has taken 2¼ centuries since Captain Cook sailed into Botany Bay to seal the strip there. But they can look forward to the 21st century with this basic job completed. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.22:59:00912House adjourned at 10.59 p.m.Notices912The following notices were given:Mr Martin to move:That the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations (Amendment), as contained in Statutory Rules 1997, No. 326, made under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, be disallowed.Mr Cobb to move:That this Parliament:(1) expresses its disappointment that Australia's reputation in the world is damaged by the fact that our ports are generally rated last amongst international shippers on the factors of reliability and value for money;(2) congratulates P&C Stevedores for having the foresight and courage to attempt to set up another stevedoring company at Webb Dock in Melbourne and possibly elsewhere in the future;(3) supports their right, in a supposedly free society, to do so without coercion or intimidatory tactics from the Maritime Union of Australia; and(4) welcomes the efficiencies that are likely to flow through from this initiative to the benefit of our Nation's import and export industries.Mr Bevis to move:That this House:(1) expresses grave concern at the allegations of illegal detention and assault against members of the Australian Defence Force;(2) notes that these concerns relate to all three services covering a period of at least five years, involving a number of personnel;(3) calls on the Government to conduct a full and open public inquiry;(4) requests that the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade give priority to expediting its inquiry into the military justice system, including these latest revelations; and(5) requests that the Government ensure that additional resources are provided to the committee so that this important task can be completed without delay.Mr Martyn Evans to move:(1) That a Joint Standing Committee on Science and Technology be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to science and technology as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister.(2) That the committee consist of 14 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any independent Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or groups or independent Senator or independent Senators.(3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.(4) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time.(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.(6) That the committee elect a deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting. (7) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote.(8) That 3 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee.(9) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine.(10) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting.(11) That the quorum of a subcommittee be 2 members of that subcommittee.(12) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum.(13) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records.(14) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place.(15) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.(16) That the committee have leave to report from time to time.(17) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.(18) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.Mr Ruddock to present a bill for an act to amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, and for related purposes.Mr Andrew to move:That the following Bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) 1998; Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Collection) 1998;Commonwealth Places Windfall Tax (Imposition) 1998;Commonwealth Places (Consequential Amendments) 1998;National Residue Survey Administration Amendment 1998;National Residue Survey (Customs) Levy 1998; andNational Residue Survey (Excise) Levy 1998.Documents914The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 10 March 1998:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 2.Air Services Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 8.Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act—National Capital Plan—Amendment No. 22.Christmas Island Act—Ordinance 1998 No. 1.Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 20.Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act—Ordinance 1998 No. 1.Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 21.Corporations Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 9, 22.Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 4, 15.Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B 1998 Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 5.Evidence Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 17.Fisheries Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 7.Foreign Judgments Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 16.Income Tax Assessment Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 14.Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act—Ordinance 1998 No. 1.Long Service Leave (Commonwealth Employees) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 19.Marine Navigation Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 11.Military Superannuation and Benefits Act—Declaration—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 13.National Environment Protection Council Act—National Environment Protection Council—National environment protection measure for the National Pollutant Inventory.National Health Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 18.Native Title Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 3.Navigation Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 12.Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 6.Remuneration Tribunal Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 10.Telecommunications Act 1997—Technical standards 1997 ACA Nos.TS 001, TS 002, TS 003, TS 004, TS 005, TS 006, TS 007, TS 008, TS 014, TS 015, TS 016, TS 018, TS 019, TS 022, TS 024, TS 025, TS 026, TS 028, TS 031, TS 034, TS 038.Veterans' Entitlements Act—Instruments under section 29 1998 Nos 1, 2.Answers to Questions in Writing915The following answers to questions were circulated:915(Question No. 2206)2206915Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 September 1997:(1) Has his attention been drawn to reports concerning the slower than expected growth in the Japanese economy; if so, what impact will this have on the Australian economy, including the growth rate.(2) Has his attention also been drawn to the slow down in economic growth in the US, as recorded in the preliminary figures for the second quarter of 1997; if so, what impact will this have on the growth of the Australian economy over the next year.(3) Has his Department revised, or will it revise, its projections for future growth in the Australian economy as a result of the data.915Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Japanese economy slowed considerably in 1997 as a result of very weak domestic demand. Poor consumer and business sentiment and the turmoil in Asia are adversely affecting the economic outlook. The Japanese government has attempted to address the weakness in domestic demand with several initiatives, such as personal tax cuts and a reduction in some corporate and land taxes, together with increased government assistance to aid the troubled financial sector. The outlook for Japan in 1998 in expected to remain weak as a result of slower export growth into the Asian region.(2) The United States economy grew by 3.8 per cent in year average terms in 1997, well above the long-term trend rate of growth. Growth is expected to slow relative to these recent very rapid rates of growth, but the outlook in the United States remains very positive and will help support the international economic environment.(3) Revised forecasts of the Australian economy were released in the Mid Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook 1997-98, published in December 1997. Developments in the world economy were taken into account in producing these forecasts.915(Question No. 2315)2315915Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 1 October 1997:Has his attention been drawn to comments attributed to him in the Australian Financial Review on 18 September 1997 regarding the provision of social security and other payments to urban residents as opposed to country residents; if so, does he have evidence of the sums of social security and other benefits being paid to residents of (a) Toorak, Vic., and Vaucluse, NSW, and (b) country and regional areas; if so, what.915Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim FischerDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes.(a) Yes.(b) Yes.Copies of the statistics as supplied by the Department of Social Security, are available at the House of Representatives Table Office.915(Question No. 2437)2437915Jones, Barry, MPMr Barry JonesKH4LalorALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 October 1997:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 72 (Hansard , 20 August 1996, page 3286), what has been the outcome of efforts to (a) improve the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954), and (b) make Australia a party to the Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague, 1954).915Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) There has been little progress at the international level to make improvements to the Hague Convention. States Parties to the Convention, including Australia met for a third time on 13 November 1997 with the purpose of discussing the possible review of the Convention. However, it is our understanding that no definitive steps for review are planned at this stage.(1) (b) No decision has been made as to whether Australia is to become a party to the Protocol to the Hague Convention. The Department of Communications and the Arts, the Department of Defence, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will continue to review this issue at the inter-agency level. Further consultations, including with State and Territory governments in accordance with the normal treaty-making process, would also be required before any decision is taken on this matter.916(Question No. 2524)2524916Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 November 1997:(1) Has his Department contracted Sirway Asia Pacific under contract reference 2580040AC to supply china dinner plates for $160 754.(2) Has Sirway previously been contracted by his Department; if so, what was the value of each contract.(3) What items will be supplied under the contract referred to in part (1).(4) In which country will the items be manufactured.(5) When will the items be delivered.(6) During the tendering process did Sirway provide a sample of each item with the brand/model name and number attached in accordance with Request for Tender No. 2570026; if not, (a) why was it awarded the contract and (b) did it subsequently provide a sample; if so, when.(7) Is his Department ensuring that Sirway maintains effective quality control at all stages and provides test facilities performing necessary tests, whether specified in the contract or not, to meet contract requirements; if so, how.(8) Is his Department ensuring that Sirway's inspection, measuring and test equipment is calibrated and associated documentation is maintained in accordance with AS3912.1-1993; if so, how.(9) Did his Department ensure that Sirway complied with sections (a) 15.4 and (b) 21.3 of the Request for Tender documentation; if so, how.(10) Did Australian Fine China also provide samples; if so, what Australian Standard tests were performed on the Sirway and Australian Fine China samples.(11) Did his Department organise a laboratory to perform durability tests on china samples supplied by tenderers; if so, which laboratory tested the Sirway and Australian Fine China samples; if not, who organised the testing and where was it performed.(12) Did the (a) Sirway and (b) Australian Fine China samples pass all tests; if not, what tests were failed in each case.(13) Did the Sirway tender offer the lowest price; if not, what was the lowest tender.(14) How long did it take his Department to evaluate all tenders. (15) Is Sirway a QA endorsed supplier; if so, what accreditation does it hold; if not, why was it awarded the contract.(16) What arrangements has his Department made with Sirway to attend to product defects.(17) Has the Inspector-General been directed to review the contract; if so, (a) at whose direction and (b) will the Inspector-General's report be released; if not, why not.916McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLachlanHT4BarkerLPDefence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Purchase Order 2580040AC for $160,754 was awarded to Sirway Asia Pacific Pty Ltd on 18 August 1997, in accordance with Standing Offer FB27007.(2) Sirway Asia Pacific Pty Ltd had not been awarded a contract prior to Purchase Order 2580040AC.(3) Purchase Order 2580040AC is for the supply of:. Platter, Food Serving, Oval, 290mm long;. Platter, Food Serving, Oval, 360mm long;. Platter, Food Serving, Oval, 420mm long;. Bowl, Food Serving, Soup, 230mm diameter;. Saucer, Cup, Breakfast, 150mm diameter;. Bowl, Food Serving, Cereal, 200mm diameter;. Cup, Drinking, Breakfast, 280ml capacity;. Cup, Drinking, Tea, 200ml capacity; and. Plate, Eating, Dinner, 255mm diameter.(4) The sourcing information of Sirway Asia Pacific Pty Ltd is commercial-in-confidence.(5) The due date for delivery is 20 January 1998.(6) (a) and (b) Tenders were not called for Purchase Order 2580040AC as it was raised in accordance with Standing Offer FB27007. As a condition of the Request for Tender for that standing offer, all tenderers submitted samples.(7) Prior to delivery, goods supplied under Purchase Order 2580040AC must meet inspection requirements in accordance with the specification DEF(AUST)5192C quoted in the contract.(8) Goods offered for inspection must meet the conditions of the contract and the requirements of the Department's inspection authority.(9) (a) and (b) Prior to the awarding of the standing offer, the Department was satisfied that the company complied with clauses 15.4 and 21.3 of the Request for Tender 2570026. Officers of the Department have undertaken visits to Sirway Asia Pacific Pty Ltd's Melbourne sites and will continue to do so for the duration of the standing offer.(10) All tenderers supplied samples for Request for Tender 2570026. Testing to Australian Standard AS/NZS 4371:1996 assessed water absorption, chipping and thermal shock.(11) Testing was conducted by Scientific Services Laboratory, a business unit of Australian Government Analytical Laboratories.(12) (a) Samples provided by Sirway Asia Pacific Pty Ltd passed all tests.(b) Samples provided by Australian Fine China failed the chipping resistance test.(13) Sirway Asia Pacific Pty Ltd offered the lowest price.(14) Request for Tenders closed on 18 September 1996 and the standing offer was awarded on 1 August 1997.(15) Sirway Asia Pacific Pty Ltd is not accredited to an Australian standard, however, this was not an evaluation criterion published in the Request for Tender. QA clauses are part of the standing offer and are being monitored by the Department.(16) The standing offer provides performance, warranty and default clauses to protect the rights of the Commonwealth.(17) (a) and (b) No. The Inspector-General has not reviewed the contract nor has he been directed to review the contract. His staff did examine the tender process leading to the contract. This examination confirmed that the contract was awarded to the tenderer offering the lowest price and the best value for money.917(Question No. 2536)2536917McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Industry, Science and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 November 1997:(1) Has the Minister's Department engaged consultants since 2 March 1996; if so, (a)which consultants have been engaged; (b)what was the nature of the work undertaken in each case; and (c)what sum was paid in each case.(2) What is the estimated cost of consultancy work being undertaken for the Minister's Department for which no payment has been made.917Moore, John, MPMr MooreEI4RyanLPIndustry, Science and Technology10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(1) (a) (b) and (c) Details of consultancies from 2 March 1996 to 30 June 1996 are listed at Attachment A. Details of consultancies from 1 July 1997 to 20 November 1997 are listed at Attachment B.Consultancies valued at $2,000 and above were included in the 1995/96 annual report.The 1996/97 annual report states that details of consultancies for that financial year are available from the Department.(2) The information I have referred to gives the value of each consultancy, which includes sums paid and sums yet to be paid. All consultancy work has been paid for, or will be paid for, in accordance with the terms of the contracts.ATTACHMENT AConsultancies commissioned by the Department between 2 March 1996 and 30 June 1996.Consultant (a)Description (b)Value (c)Allen Consulting GroupStudy on Australia as a regional financial services centre$355,000 Arthur AndersenBenchmarking project: three (3) biennial audits of Australia's textile, clothing and footwear industries$375,000 Aptech Australia Pty LtdUpdate of world competitive manufacturing workshop manual$18,400 Ove Arup and PartnersEvaluation of Very High Speed Train project: alternatives study$9,800 Asia Pacific Intellectual Property Law Institute—Murdoch UniversitySeminar: the importance of intellectual property in Vietnam$54,868 ASPECT ComputingFeasibility study for providing Australian Centre for Remote Sensing (ACRES) data through the internet$8,334 Australian Bureau of StatisticsAustralian SME research database (AUSSMED) development$3,230,280 Barraclough and Company Australia LtdStudy: impediments and incentives among Australian firms—market analysis of program client groups$50,000 Biosis Research PTY LTDEvaluation of Very High Speed Train project: environment study$6,805 Catalyst Communications Pty LtdEvaluation of Very High Speed Train project: summary report$2,450 Centre For Innovation and Enterprise Pty LtdStudy into requirements of equity investors in SME's (development of `investment ready' criteria)$50,000 Connell Wagner Pty LtdEvaluation of Very High Speed Train project: infrastructure and engineering studies$4,900 Coopers and LybrandPreparation of DIST 1995/96 financial statements$35,000 Coopers and LybrandReview of the Australian Sports Commission Board$13,595CSIRODevelopment of a fundamental gravity station$9,000FortechResearch into wood and paper industry's enterprise improvement needs$49,430 FUGROHydrographic Survey$3,783Interaction Corporate CommunicationsProduce poster version of AUSLIG Business Plan$5,900International Trade Strategies Pty LtdProcessed foods market access strategy study$60,000 George LivanosPharmaceutical testing survey$6,000Mack Consulting GroupEvaluation of graduate based projects$17,700 Pacific Consulting Infrastructure EconomistsEvaluation of Very High Speed Train project: patronage study$5,058 PLG Inc.Probabilistic safety assessment and remaining life study of HIFAR nuclear research reactor$1,072,423 Price WaterhouseStudy: impediments/incentives among Australian firms—benefits of business improvement program$60,000 Price WaterhouseSmall business deregulation task force research: review and analysis of reports on regulatory reform$25,000 Price WaterhouseEvaluation of Very High Speed Train project: financial and funding options$4,900 STM Consulting Pty Ltd (formerly Strategic Technology Management)Consultancy services for TIDA (Telecommunications Industry Development Authority) survey$26,400 Strategic Industry Research FoundationStudy: understanding benefits from R&D$60,000 Symonds Travers MorganEvaluation of Very High Speed Train project: economic analysis study$8,820 Systems Union Pty LtdPlan and implement Sun Systems financial system$148,266Techstrat Research Pty LtdAnalysis and report on AMC's `leading the way' database$20,000 Techstrat Research Pty Ltd and Norma Harrison T/A Beaumont Management ConsultingReport: Review of International Best Practice in Adoption and Management of Technology$99,000 University of SydneySelf-help manual for SME's to form business networks$47,000 University of WollongongMarket analysis of IR&D Board clients: impediments and incentives among Australian firms$50,000 Upton Martin ConsultingDevelop and implement a Learning organisation (cultural change) program$22,527WANG Australia Pty LtdReplacement of existing OPEN trade mark imaging application$44,800 Mark WoodFinancial management training—non financial managers$4,640ATTACHMENT BConsultancies commissioned by the Department since 1 July 1997.Consultant (a)Description (b)Value (c)ACIL Economics and Policy Pty LtdPreparation of overview of Australian construction industry$82,500 ACNielsen.McNair (formerly AGB McNair)Survey of AusIndustry client firms: enterprise development programs$54,650 ACNielsen.McNair (formerly AGB McNair)Survey of AusIndustry client firms: research and development programs$54,650 Angels Group Pty LtdParticipation in selection committee for School-Industry Links Demonstration program$1,200ANUTECH Pty LtdStatistical services in relation to the National Visitor Survey$36,000 Aquarius CommunicationStaff selection services$4,240Aspect Computing Pty LtdSoftware modifications to R&D Start Branch's Grants and Loans Management Information System (GLAM)$15,000 Australian Marine Science and Technology Ltd (AMSAT)Government sector linkages program—Australia technology and sustainable development in E.Indonesia$132,700 Australian Property GroupRental determination consulting$2,000Barraclough and Company Australia LtdDesign and development of AusIndustry's Business Assessment program$70,000 Bis Shrapnel Pty LtdReport on building regulatory systems in selected overseas countries$85,350 Blake Dawson WaldronLegal services for the outsourcing of public interest work$26,657Bresso Holdings Pty LtdRedevelopment of International Science and Technology Program database using Microsoft Access 2$5,000 Buchan Communications Group Pty LtdCommunications audit and strategy$29,400 Chinook Investments Pty LtdConsultancy services to contract negotiation team$14,233Coopers and LybrandFinancial management and implementation of accrual budgeting$43,250Coopers and LybrandConfidential survey of SES Band 1 and Band 2 DIST officers$29,700 Dain Simpson AssociatesWorkshops on Australian tourism sector: APEC Tourism Working Group (TWG) report—Impediments to Tourism Growth in the APEC Region$7,180 Deacons Graham & JamesLegal fees for sale of AUSLIG$56,423Deloitte Touche TohmatsuReview of TEXCO (tariff export concession), duty drawback, and temporary importation provisions$75,000 Don't Press PublicationsDevelopment of illustrations for the Ecolodge Directory$9,000 ETC Electronic Trading Concepts Pty LtdNational Business Information Service: development of vision, objectives, benchmarks and delivery options$157,500 Fellows Medlock and AssociatesProvision of advice and assistance in the development of a workplace reforms strategy for DIST$20,000 Hunarch Consulting (Rod A Hunter T/A Hunarch Consulting)Social research on access and facilities for people with disabilities$9,000 KPMG Management ConsultingForecasting changes in tourist activity as a result of the 2000 Olympic Games$61,000 Margenison-McCann TM SystemsTeam management profiles$3,834Margules Groome Poyry Pty LtdFood products benchmarking study$162,000 Melbourne Certification GroupBuilding surveying services in relation to access and facilities for people with disabilities$9,000 William M Mercer Pty LtdPrivate sector overview, critique of design and implementation mechanisms of the Small Business Innovation Fund scheme$20,000 Metrographics (Symagy Pty Ltd T/A Metrographics)IR&D Board annual report and annual review: design, preparation and production$49,779 John Mitchell and AssociatesDevelopment of scoping study on telemedicine activities in Australia$25,000 Monash UniversityProvision and analysis of nursery furniture (and bunk beds) injury data$19,000 Morgan and BanksRecruitment services$47,336National Economics Pty LtdReport on Australian building and construction industry product and services export potential to overseas market$85,200 Vasiliki Nihas and AssociatesDevelopment of a toolkit for the Qualilty Customer Service project$26,345 NNC LimitedVerification of costings associated with siting options for a replacement (nuclear) research reactor$49,900 Occupational Service of AustraliaOnsite staff support$1,500Price WaterhousePreparation of report on effect of tax concessions on foreign business investors$55,000Price WaterhousePreparation of report on taxation of investment income$52,000Rawlingsons (Australia) Pty LtdQuantity surveying and estimating services on the cost of a proposed standard for access and facilities for people with disabilities$10,800 Christine ReidParticipation in selection committee for School-Industry Links Demonstration program$1,000Standards Australia (Standards Association of Australia)Production of report on Australian building regulations, standards and conformance systems$30,240 Stenning and Associates Pty LtdIdentification of codes of practice for inclusion in the National Business Information Service (BIS)$57,521 Sydney Convention and Visitors Bureau (Jon Hutchison)Management of industry consultation process for development of national tourism plan$40,000 Total Risk Management Pty LtdDue diligence assessment of innovation investment fund licence applicants$295,000 University of WollongongReport to address terms of reference and impact of Mortimer Review of Business Programs report: Going for Growth—Business Programs for Investment, Innovation and Export$13,500 Upton Martin ConsultingLearning organisation (cultural exchange) program$17,090Wiggins Price and Associates Pty LtdRules of origin (ROOs) industry consultations$24,000 Marguerite WinterRevision and update of Investment Promotion and Facilitation program publication: Australia: Your Strategic Investment Location$9,801 Winthrop Stimson Putnam and Robert (USA)Provision of legal advice: Australian legal and regulatory framework for commercial space launch activities$25,000 Woolcott Research Pty LtdSurvey on Australians' attitudes to and knowledge of science and technology (S&T)$75,000 Worthington di Marzio Pty LtdFocus testing creatives associated with the Research and Development Communications Strategy and reporting findings thereof$6,400