1998-03-123816REPS109901998-03-12Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills1099r4441099Bill presented by Mr Costello, and read a first time.109909:31:001099Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to establish a framework for the provision of financial assistance by Australia to countries that are undertaking economic adjustment programs with the support of the International Monetary Fund.The current financial crisis in Asia has led a number of countries in our region to undertake such programs. The International Monetary Fund generally seeks to supplement the assistance it provides from its own resources to member countries in such circumstances with support from multilateral development banks and from other countries that are prepared to help. This extends the effectiveness of the fund's assistance. It can also provide additional assurance to financial markets that a country's adjustment program has broad international support.The magnitude and character of the current crisis have required assistance on a very substantial scale. Over recent months, the fund has requested Australia to participate in support arrangements for Thailand, Indonesia and the Republic of Korea. The government has agreed to do so, subject to certain conditions, for an amount in each case of up to $US1 billion.The government's decisions to provide support reflect the importance of economic and political stability in the region for Australia and the Australian economy. It was apparent that a crisis in one country could spread and set off further crises elsewhere. And the more severe the crisis became, the greater the risks to Australia, to Australia's export industries and to Australian jobs. It is important that governments are able to act swiftly in such circumstances to help mobilise international support to deal with a crisis and to provide commitments on our own participation.At present there is no legislative framework for handling these situations, which have in the past been dealt with in an ad hoc manner. In 1995, when Australia was requested to assist a fund-supported adjustment program in Papua New Guinea, a government-to-government loan was put in place without specific legislation using funds obtained initially from the Minister for Finance's Advance. When the support arrangements for Thailand were agreed last year, the funds were required quickly and went well beyond what was available through the Minister for Finance's Advance. Our assistance was therefore provided by way of a currency swap between the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Bank of Thailand.However, it would be inappropriate to continue to draw on the balance sheet of the Reserve Bank for such arrangements, which are properly matters for governments and should be reflected in the government's accounts. The bill provides a new framework for handling them.Under the bill, the Treasurer may, on behalf of Australia, make agreements for the provision of financial assistance for countries undertaking fund-supported adjustment programs. Such agreements must meet some important conditions. There must be a request by the International Monetary Fund for Australian assistance and the agreement must allow Australia to require repayment if the fund program is suspended or prematurely terminated. This is to ensure that Australian assistance is provided only where a fund program is in place and continues to be adhered to by the recipient country.The Treasurer must also be satisfied that other countries or international organisations will also be providing support to the recipient country as part of the fund program. This is to ensure that Australia is not alone in providing any assistance under the bill, but that it is part of an international effort.It is normal in international arrangements in support of fund programs for the participants to coordinate their efforts to ensure broad consistency in the terms of their assistance and in its timing. In particular, it is established practice for such support to be provided at a cost to the recipient country which at least covers the lender's costs of funds and often with a margin to allow for at least part of the risk involved. Such terms need to be negotiated in individual cases and cannot be prescribed in advance in legislation. However, it is the firm intention of the government to continue to adhere to this practice in any support arrangements that may be undertaken under the bill. This will ensure that these arrangements do not impose direct costs on Australian taxpayers and that there is scope to earn some income to offset risk.It also means that any support provided by Australia under the bill will not be counted as overseas development assistance and will not constitute part of Australia's aid program. The purpose of the transactions involved is to provide balance of payments support to the recipient country, in order to boost market confidence and help stabilise financial flows across the country's exchange markets and reduce volatility in its exchange rate. They are one-off transactions to provide temporary assistance to deal with financial crises; unlike official development assistance, they do not provide continuing transfers of real resources to the recipient country.The bill provides for support to be given either through loans or currency swaps. The government intends to provide its assistance to Indonesia and Korea by loans, which is the simpler arrangement. Loans may be made in Australian dollars or in another currency. For example, the loan to Korea is expected to be made in United States dollars.Currency swaps are now also widely used as a means of providing emergency support. They involve a temporary exchange of assets on agreed terms. Under a currency swap, Australia would receive currency of the other country to hold in return for the funds provid ed by Australia. Some countries are providing their support by way of currency swaps and the bill provides flexibility for Australia to use them if this appears warranted in particular circumstances.Detailed terms and conditions for loans or swaps in agreements under the bill will need to be negotiated in the individual circumstances of each case. The bill also makes provision to cover the government's commitments to Indonesia and Korea if agreements with these countries are reached prior to the commencement of the act.Last year the parliament agreed to amendments to the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to ratify Australia's participation in the International Monetary Fund's New Arrangements to Borrow. Those arrangements have not yet come into effect, as several participants are still to complete their ratifications. When they do, the fund's access to resources in crisis situations will be substantially enhanced. The increase in fund quotas agreed to by fund governors last month will also expand the fund's capital base. Together, these steps will enable the fund to continue to play its central role in the handling of international financial crises.However, circumstances are likely to continue to arise, from time to time, when Australia will be asked to participate in support arrangements for fund programs. It is to be hoped that such calls for assistance will be rare, exceptional events. Nevertheless, when they do occur, governments must be in a position to respond quickly. This bill will allow Australia to play its part in international cooperation efforts when necessary to safeguard and promote Australian interests.Financial ImpactThe bill appropriates the funds required by agreements to which it applies. Loans to Indonesia and Korea could amount to up to $US2 billion, but detailed arrangements have yet to be agreed. The extent of other transactions under the bill will depend on what requests may be made of Australia in future years. Details of the budget treatment of transactions under the bill are set out in the explanatory memorandum. I present the explanatory memorandum for the bill and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills1101r4571101Bill presented by Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.110109:40:001101Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill shows the government's commitment to retaining Medicare as a system, ensuring that all Australians can gain access to health services they need and ensuring that Australians enjoy a world class health system. This bill provides the basic framework for agreements between the Commonwealth and states for the provision by the states of acute health services to public patients in return for Commonwealth financial assistance.The Australian health care agreements, as they will be known, will provide financial assistance fairly and equitably and will introduce new measures that will alleviate some of the problems that have been experienced in past agreements—problems such as cost shifting between levels of government and artificial barriers to care.As well as providing for ongoing financial assistance, the legislation that I am introducing today provides special assistance for national health development initiatives. This assistance will provide support for major projects to enhance and improve the acute care system, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of health care delivery, improving patient outcomes in relation to the delivery of these services and addressing the factors that lead to avoidable or unnecessary hospitalisation.The Commonwealth will not be imposing uses for this money on the states but will instead be inviting proposals from the states as to how the money might be best spent. I envisage that many projects would seek to improve the integration of the acute care sector with the wider health care system or improve the linkage of information technology across the system.This legislation also provides for the retention of important features of previous agreements. These include agreed principles for the provision of services. States will be required to put in place arrangements to ensure equitable access to services for all eligible persons regardless of their geographic location. The legislation also retains the need for states to make available a public hospital charter and an appropriate complaints mechanism. Funding under the agreement is dependent on the services being available to the public.As I said earlier, one of the most significant issues that has dogged current agreements has been that of cost shifting. The Commonwealth believes that the states have shifted services from public hospitals that they fund on to the Medicare benefits and pharmaceutical benefits programs that we fund. The states, on the other hand, argue that if services can be funded under Commonwealth programs, then they ought to be.The legislation being introduced today will address this issue by establishing a health care information commissioner as a statutory authority responsible for the collection, analysis and dissemination of de-identified patient level data from the Commonwealth and the states. The commissioner will identify the movement of services around the health care system and report on how these services are funded. The commissioner's reports will be made available to all parties. The agreements will make it absolutely clear that the Commonwealth will be unable to make adjustments to states' funding except on the basis of a report from the commissioner. Subject to the agreement of the states and territories, it is possible that the functions of the commissioner will be assumed by the Health Insurance Commission. In any event, the same stringent privacy requirements that presently apply to the HIC will apply to the commissioner. The legislation and the agreements will maintain the fundamental principle of universal access to acute health services on the basis of need, delivering on our commitment to maintain Medicare. But equally as important, agreements made under this legislation will lead to a reformed acute health care system, with better integration of different types of care, improved patient outcomes and more appropriate types of care. The agreements will provide appropriate adjustments for growth and the demand of the health system over the next five years while providing funding to restructure the system to meet demand into the longer term.This bill will maintain Australia's reputation as having one of the best health care systems in the world and will continue to do so well into the 21st century. I commend the bill to the House. I present an explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Bills1102r4371102Bill presented by Mr Miles, and read a first time.110209:45:001102Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 contains substantial measures which form part of the major reform package to the child support scheme announced by the government on 30 September 1997.The reform package underscores the fundamental principle that parents are primarily responsible for the financial support of their children. The government, through these measures, will not intrude unnecessarily into people's lives. Rather, it will provide a safety net to ensure children are adequately supported and that the community is not asked to carry an undue burden. The package addresses most of the concerns raised by the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Issues.Parents' capacity to provide financial supportThe administrative formula will be modified by increasing the liable parent's exempted income, including an allowance for a shared care child and reducing a carer's disregarded income. Child support payable by a liable parent with a subsequent family will reduce the income used in calculating their entitlement to family allowance.The bill will amend the basis of the administrative formula by increasing a parent's taxable income by adding back rental property losses and including exempt foreign employment income. It will also provide for a more accurate assessment through using the most current taxable income, thereby eliminating the requirement to apply an inflation factor.Assessments are to be modified to take into account certain kinds of parents' agreements as to care arrangements, both factual and lawful daily care of a child and a step-child where a liable parent has a legal duty to maintain the step-child.The bill will extend the date by which a person may lodge an estimate of income up to 31 July. The Registrar will be able to reject an estimate where it does not reflect the person's income. The bill will reduce the complexity of the departure from assessment process, clarify the rights of parents to exchange information and the circumstances under which hearings will be granted. The Registrar will have the right to initiate a departure when satisfied that a parent's financial circumstances are not accurately reflected in their child support assessment.Parents' rights and responsibilitiesThe bill will provide the following rights:. either parent may apply for an administrative assessment of child support. the Registrar may suspend payments of child support where the Family Court has been asked to make a decision. parents may move from child support collection of child support to private collection by agreement at any time and the Registrar may require parents to move to private collection where satisfied that regular payments are likely to continue. a parent may elect to end their administrative assessment where the Secretary to the Department of Social Security has granted an exemption. a child support assessment or agreement may continue until the end of the school year if a child turning 18 is a full-time student. information shown on an assessment notice in relation to children of a liable parent will be limited. parents may object to all decisions of the Registrar made in relation to administrative assessments.Introduction of a child support minimum liability including provision to withhold from income support payments will emphasise the primary responsibility of parents in caring for their children. The Registrar's power to reduce the minimum liability will be limited. However, if the liable parent is receiving less than $260 income, they may make an application to the Registrar to seek to have the liability reduced to nil.The bill includes measures which will put greater onus on parents to notify changes in circumstances.Flexible and streamlined administrationThe bill contains improvements to streamline administration of the scheme and provides greater flexibility to meet parents' particular circumstances. These improvements include:. removing retrospectivity in relation to the commencement of a liability. enhancing payment options for liable parents. providing flexibility in how information is provided. allowing the Registrar to offset debts between parents.The important reforms in this bill will represent the second stage of this government's response to the Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Issues. Other changes were introduced in 1997. In conclusion, as part of getting on with the job in this area, the government will establish a task force of government members to examine further proposed changes to the child support scheme. I commend the bill to the House and present the Explanatory Memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Martyn Evans) adjourned.Committees11031103110309:51:001103Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I present the report No. 356: An advisory report on the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—Mr Speaker, I take this opportunity, my first, to congratulate you on your promotion to high office. On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report No. 356: An advisory report on the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 . This is the third occasion that the committee has reported on a bill arising from the rewrite of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The first tranche of rewrite legislation was reviewed during 1996, with the committee tabling its findings in August of that year. The second tranche was reviewed in 1997, with the committee reporting in March 1997. The committee looks forward to reviewing further rewrite legislation as it is introduced into the parliament following the return of the government at the next election. I expect to have the pleasure of tabling those reports in the next parliament.The rewrite is being undertaken by the Tax Law Improvement Project, TLIP, situated in the Australian Taxation Office and has the aim of simplifying and restructuring the existing law to make it clear. This should reduce compliance costs to taxpayers. The Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 has attracted considerable interest from stakeholders as it contains the important capital gains tax provisions. The committee, because of its long involvement in the rewrite of the 1936 act, has recognised recurrent themes that have arisen during the review of this bill and has commented on these matters in the report.The first recurrent theme is that stakeholders have been frustrated for some time with the inability of TLIP to address the issues of a small `p' policy nature. The committee has acknowledged this and, in report No. 348, the review of the second tranche of legislation recommended that TLIP's mandate be extended to encompass the consideration of small policy issues. Although the government has not agreed with this recommendation, the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) has put in place a separate mechanism involving stakeholders by which such issues can be addressed. The committee welcomes this initiative and believes this may satisfy the thrust of its earlier recommendation.A second recurrent theme observed by the committee is a continuing perception among some stakeholders that TLIP defers to an Australian Taxation Office view when translating the existing law into new law. Several submissions have focused on this issue. The committee notes that the perception is strongly held by some stakeholders and has been rigorously defended by TLIP. The committee has discussed this matter in the report and provided some of the evidence as an appendix. The committee notes that, if individual stakeholders strongly disagree with the stance taken by TLIP on a particular matter, there are various other avenues to seek redress. This is entirely appropriate and forms a keystone of our system of government.A third recurrent theme, and one which appears to have had a critical impact on this review, relates to the time available to review the bill. The bill contains the important and complex capital gains tax provisions but, unfortunately, the time allowed for stakeholders to respond to exposure drafts of the legislation has been truncated, and the time for the committee to review the bill after its introduction has been short, especially when compared to the complex issues upon which the committee has been asked to report. As well, there is evidence of undue haste in preparing the bill because it was incomplete when introduced. One division and several transitional provisions have yet to be released. The truncated consultation process and the incompleteness of the bill have led witnesses to express a lack of confidence in their ability to adequately review the proposed legislation and identify unintended consequences. They have called for the implementation of the bill to be delayed, or for a no detriment clause to be added.The committee, in reviewing the bill, has found itself in a similar position to the stakeholders. The incompleteness of the bill and the short time for review has prevented the committee reviewing the legislation with the thoroughness it would like. The committee has therefore recommended that the implementation of two divisions and one subdivision of the bill be delayed pending its review by the committee. These provisions were released too late for the committee to review them or have not been released at all. The committee also notes the transitional provisions relating to 12 areas have yet to be released. The committee considers it inappropriate to go further, and has not agreed with calls to delay the entire bill. The committee acknowledges the imperative to maintain momentum in the progressive introduction of clearer law to replace the 1936 act, and is encouraged by the fact that witnesses have commented favourably on the clarity of the bill. Taxpayers should not be denied recourse to legislation which is designed to be clearer and which should reduce compliance costs.The alternative to delaying the bill advocated by some witnesses—the introduction of a no detriment clause—has also not been supported by the committee. Such a clause would prevent closing off the existing law. In reviewing previous rewrite legislation, the committee supported the view that the rewritten legislation should replace provisions of the 1936 act and should not operate in tandem with that act. The committee has not changed its view and believes it is more appropriate for taxpayers to rely on the existing section 1-3 and the traditional avenue of legislative amendment to protect against unintended consequences. The committee, in reviewing individual clauses of the bill, has made a number of recommendations which relate to policy issues which are outside TLIP's mandate; major technical issues which are sufficiently weighty to require substantial review which may be beyond TLIP's capacity to undertake or be sufficiently broad in scope to impinge on policy matters; and minor technical issues of a non-policy nature which TLIP can address. The report also contains, as an appendix, comments on individual clauses of the bill made in submissions and by witnesses, together with responses by TLIP. The committee believes that this will be a guide to the evidence and assist the debate on the details of the bill.In conclusion, and on behalf of the committee, I would like to thank all those who have contributed to this review. Many have provided submissions to the committee and appeared as witnesses at the committee's public hearing. In particular, I would like to thank the private sector representatives on TLIP and TLIP's private sector consultative committee. I am personally indebted to my colleagues on the committee who dedicated much time and effort to completing this review in a very short time frame. I would also like to thank members of the secretariat: Dr Margot Kerley, the JCPAA Secretary; Dr John Carter, who was the inquiry secretary; and Ms Tiana Gray, who was also involved in the inquiry. I also thank Mr Gary Martin, who was seconded to the secretariat to assist the committee and its secretariat with the review. I commend the report to the House.09:59:001105Beddall, David, MPMr BEDDALLQE4RankinALP00—by leave—I rise to support the comments of the Chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit particularly on the review of the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 . As has been the case in the long history of the JCPAA, as it is now, this recommendation and report are unanimous across party lines. I am happy to make some remarks as I have had a long interest in capital gains tax particularly, as members would be aware, in the small business area.This bill, as outlined by the chairman, the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Charles), contains important clarification of capital gains tax provisions. The tax law improvement project, commonly known as TLIP, was formed in 1993 to rewrite the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in plain English. In 1996, attention was directed to an important area of tax policy, that is, capital gains tax. Subsequently, the Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 was introduced into this House. The bill was then referred to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit for its consideration. As usual, the government allowed little time for due consideration. This put stress on staff, committee members and, in particular, those wishing to make submissions. However, a number of public hearings were held—I was pleased to see that a round table format was adopted—in which all participants were able to raise their concerns or as many concerns as possible.In February this year, a half-day public hearing was held to enable discussion of the material released as government amendments. All members of the sectional committee firmly believe that the tax law rewrite will undoubtedly result in better law for taxpayers, but members of the committee felt that there was a rising level of disquiet in the tax community of the TLIP team's inability to deal with policy issues—in particular, small `p' policy issues.I will now turn to one of the recommendations which the committee resolved. Recommendation No. 4 states:When the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is asked to review future Tax Law Improvement Project legislation, all of the proposed legislation and associated consequential and transitional provisions should be introduced into the Parliament together and the Committee is given adequate time for a thorough review.There was some debate in the committee that the haste in introducing the bill had led to inadequate consultation. Whilst there is some strong merit in this argument, the committee did not support the recommendation that the bill should be delayed further. The committee firmly believes that taxpayers should not have to wait any longer for legislation which is designed to be clearer and which will reduce compliance costs.I look forward to further developments to legislation which will assist the development of better law for the Australian taxpayers. Like the rest of the committee, I thank all those who have contributed and the staff for their contributions. I commend the report to the House.10:02:001106Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—by leave—I note the presence in the chamber of the previous chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, the member for Fairfax (Mr Somlyay), as well as the current chair, the member for La Trobe (Mr Charles). The report we are considering today relates to the tax law improvement project process of the rewriting of the tax act, as has been mentioned by previous speakers. I will focus on a couple of issues on this occasion, given the shortage of time. The Tax Law Improvement Bill (No. 2) 1997 is the third bill that we have had to consider as part of this rewrite. It is a massive job—a job that is well overdue. It is a job which has been done, under the circumstances, in a pretty effective fashion.I will focus on a couple of points that have been mentioned by previous speakers. One is the question of small `p' policy issues which have come up continually during this rewrite. I congratulate the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Kemp) on finally having a process to consider these issues in-house. I say `finally', so I am damning him with faint praise. The fact is that this was a recommendation that came out of a report, I think some 18 months ago, from the JCPAA. It has taken the government that long to respond to it. Now that it has responded, I congratulate it. I hope the new process works. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, though. It will take some time before we can establish whether the new process will be effective. It is a step in the right direction towards at least trying to consider some of these issues and to resolve them. There is no doubt that there is a range of things which could be addressed in the committee structure which has been proposed if the government embraces it.The other issue which has been referred to by previous speakers is the time available to review this bill. I will make some general comments here which relate to the operation of the committee system under this government. Congratulations go to the government—again, I suppose I am damning them with faint praise—for the number of pieces of legislation which have been referred to the JCPAA, which is a good thing in terms of the scrutiny of government and the consideration of legislation. I congratulate them on that front. However, one of the problems this committee faces in particular—I think other committees also share this difficulty—is having to do more reports and consider more legislation with fewer resources or unreasonable time lines for the proper consideration of bills.Having a scrutiny system through parliamentary committees is a very important part of ensuring that bills are considered properly and that parliament is involved in that process. But not giving committees sufficient time or resources to do this is, in itself, an abrogation of the responsibilities that government and parliament have to ensure that job is done properly. Although I think that the secretariat and members of this committee in particular have done a sterling job under the circumstances, the fact is, on matters such as this, we are not being given sufficient time to properly consider bills. This particular bill is the third in the process of the continual review and rewrite of the original tax act. After complaints were made by the committee on previous occasions and a request was made to government that more time be given, what happened? We were given more time—two more weeks for what is clearly the most complicated component of that tax rewrite. As is noted by the report and by the recommendations, major components of what relates to this bill, to this section of the rewrite, are not available for consideration. In effect, we have been forced to consider an element of what is the whole in this issue—if you like, several pieces of the jigsaw—and to make conclusions as to whether that is a good or a bad thing. We have done that to the best of our abilities. But have we done it as well as we should have? No. Have we been given enough time to do it? No. Have we had enough resources to do it? No. Have the private sector and those who are interested in this particular issue in the community had enough time to consider these matters? No. Do we, therefore, have the best under the circumstances? My worry is that we do not. But time will tell.Hopefully we will not face this situation again, because there will be more components of the rewrite coming through and they will be considered by this committee. On those occasions, I hope to not be standing here once again—I am now, I think, for the third time—complaining about the time that we have available. However, I have doubts about that. I suspect that I will be, on a continuing basis.If a government prides itself on saying that it values the work of parliament, that it sees it as a more important role than what it maintains others have in the past, I think there has to be more to that than the rhetoric. There has to be some action, and I do not see the action that is required. Having said that, I commend the report to the House as I think a reasonable examination of what was available to be examined, but I am sure I will be standing here again in the future on the same issue.Parliamentary Zone11071107Motion (by Mr Somlyay)—agreed to:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 , the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 2 March 1998, namely: Additional drinking fountains in the public gardens and on the tennis court pavilions of Parliament House.Bills1107r3881107Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Tanner moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House declines to give the Bill any further consideration until the Government provides guarantees to the Parliament that the sale of ANL will proceed on the basis that the company will continue to employ Australians in its operations".10:09:001107Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSERRI4ForrestLP10—The mere mention of a proposed sale of ANL set off a series of strikes by wharfies and seafarers that cost the government, according to one union estimate, up to $40 million. The deal brokered by the then Minister for Transport, the member for Kingsford-Smith, Laurie Brereton, did not reform the ANL; it protected ANL from competition, compounding the inefficiencies that already existed. Under the Brereton deal, international seafarers became tax exempt; ship owners could claim a greater depreciation on their vessels; foreign fleets were to be locked out of the Australian coastal trade; and foreign seamen were to be kept off Australian ships.The due diligence report considered the four sale options for ANL: first, minority or majority float of ANL; second, minority or majority sale of the Commonwealth's share of ANL; third, reconstruction of ANL to a domestic business;and, fourth, the managed trade down of ANL and sale of its constituent assets and, where possible, selected businesses as a going concern. The report recommended that the last option, a managed trade down of ANL, was the only viable disposal option for the Commonwealth, yet neither the former transport minister nor the former finance minister—indeed, Australia's failed former finance minister Beazley—could adopt these policies. Worse than not being able to implement the recommendations of the due diligence report was the damaging comments made by the member for Kingsford-Smith about the proposed privatisation of ANL. In August of 1994, the then transport minister said:It's not a case of privatising ANL; you couldn't give it away.This statement, which drew strong criticism from the Auditor-General's office, was an act of economic vandalism by a minister of the Crown. Here was a minister who, on the one hand, was trying to sell a wholly owned government company and, on the other hand, was talking down the value of the asset to potential purchasers.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Who was that?RI4Prosser, Geoff, MPMr PROSSER—Laurie Brereton. The former Minister for Transport then sacked the old ANL board and appointed a new board—a board stacked with Labor Party mates whose background in shipping was highly questionable. Labor mate Neville Wran was the board's chairman—well looked after on over $150,000 for working roughly a day a week for six months. In an interview on Meet the Press on Sunday, 1 October 1995, the member for Kingsford-Smith said one of two things would happen to ANL:Either the line will be sold to P&O or there'll be a very radical restructure to stop it losing any further money. I've always preferred the sale option.The government shares that view—sell ANL. In the same interview, Brereton said:This company lost $20-$25 million a year every year for five years. Someone had to put an end to that.He is right. They should have, but they did not. By the time Labor left office in 1996, ANL's accumulated debt was over $224.7 million, and none of the initial recommendations had been implemented.The ANL Sale Bill 1997 comprehensively covers the sale of ANL and sets out conditions for the government's divestment of its interest in ANL. Under the bill, the existing long service and maternity leave entitlements of ANL employees are protected. Adequate provisions are made in the bill to ensure that the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 continues to apply after the sale date in respect of injuries sustained by ANL employees covered by the act prior to the sale.As part of the preparation for the sale of ANL, the bill amends the ANL Act 1956 to remove private provisions that would not appropriately apply in the case of a private company, such as the specific statutory protection of trading names. The bill extinguishes ANL's accumulated tax losses and ensures that these losses will not be able to offset for income purposes any profits or capital gains made by ANL after the sale. The bill also removes ANL from the operations of a number of acts that apply to the Commonwealth controlled entities. These acts include the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 and the Judiciary Act 1903. The bill also ends ANL's future liability under the Commonwealth Borrowing Levy Act 1987.In an undertaking to sell Commonwealth assets, the usual debate emerges from the Left. Of course, they often say that there are problems in selling government business entities, but there are numerous very successful examples of privatisation and partial privatisation in Australia, including the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas and Telstra. We should remember, of course, that Labor were not going to sell the Commonwealth Bank. They promised not to sell it. They were not going to sell Qantas. Of course, we should have sold them long ago. We have done so, and Australians are very much involved.The partial privatisation of Telstra conferred great benefits to Australians not only by increasing competition and service but also through the direct investment of 559,000 Australians who entered the share market for the first time to buy Telstra shares. The partial privatisation of Telstra dramatically increased Australia's private share ownership to 40.4 per cent, giving Australia the second highest share participation rate in the world just behind that of the US at 43 per cent.It is important to examine the profile of Australia's newest shareholders. Many investors are younger people: a third of all Australian investors are aged between 25 and 34. Many investors are low income Australians: 45.1 per cent of Australian households investing have incomes of between $30,000 and $50,000. Many investors are women: 36.2 per cent of Australian women have some involvement in the share market.Last year, Telstra reported a profit before tax and abnormals of some $3.8 billion. Last year Telstra paid $1.3 billion in taxes to the Commonwealth. Last year, ANL's accumulated losses were $211.2 million. We believe Australians should no longer have to subsidise ANL and we are taking the tough political decision to ensure that they no longer have to carry the burden of ANL.10:17:001109Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—I congratulate the member for Forrest (Mr Prosser) for a very good speech on the reason why this legislation is going through—that is, the sale of ANL. The ANL Sale Bill 1997 fulfils yet another election pledge by this government to sell a business which has no place in public ownership. Clearly, the litany of disaster in the sale process that was conducted by the previous government demonstrates that point.The role of government is to focus on core services which the private sector cannot or should not do, such as law enforcement. Most would agree with the principle that public money should not be risked in competitive business; that public money, that taxpayers' money, should not be risked in businesses that do not perform or do not belong in public ownership. Further, the government is much better placed to regulate and promote competition if it is not at the same time a competitor with those businesses.The sale of the 100 per cent government owned company was announced in the 1997-98 budget. This bill has two purposes in particular: firstly, it enables the sale to proceed quickly once the government has announced a timetable and, secondly, it gives the government more opportunity to get the best value for the company. The sale could proceed without legislation, but this is a more efficient way to do the job. The bill removes ANL's accumulated tax losses for the year prior to the sale—tax losses in the order of $80 million. I might add that these were tax losses that were quite conveniently going to be traded off under the previous government. It is amazing how government enterprises can trade off tax losses but private enterprises cannot.ANL is not just a shipping company; it also has land transportation, container park and servicing interests. It employs about 240 workers and carries three per cent of Australia's trade by value. The importance of the waterfront cannot be exaggerated. In spite of the advent of cheaper air cargo, three-quarters of our imports and exports are con ducted by sea. Waterfront services account for a significant component of our export prices—indeed, about four per cent in the case of agricultural and mining commodities and about two to three per cent in the case of manufacturing. So it is a major cost factor for our exports. That is why waterfront reform is important for Australia—even Labor does recognise that begrudgingly. Labor's attempt at reform 10 years ago achieved very little and cost the nation $420 million.MF4COBBMr Cobb—An embarrassment.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONY—As the member for Parkes says, an absolute embarrassment. Labor was prevented from implementing durable reform by union bosses, just as it was humiliated by the MUA over the attempted sale of ANL in 1995. Labor has learnt its lesson and now it dares not to say or do anything that might get it on the wrong side of one Mr John Coombs. In fact, it opposes any change which will lead to an end of the MUA's labour monopoly. That was one of the principal reasons why the ANL sale did not go through in 1995.Let us look at a little bit of history. The Commonwealth has been trying to sell ANL since 1991, but Labor governments were dictated to by their union paymasters. Labor eventually put it in the too-hard basket along with balancing the budget, along with tax reform and along with waterfront reform. This was the boast of the Maritime Workers Journal in 1995:The Keating Government has decided to extend the deadline for ANL rather than confront the unions and a second national stoppage.Indeed, it was the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton) who told the Australian newspaper on 24 August 1994: `You couldn't give it away; that's the reality.' The reality was that they did have a buyer. In fact, the buyer was P&O and it was willing to take ANL off the taxpayers' hands and it was willing to save the Commonwealth an enormous amount of money and to restructure ANL, which is Australia's only shipping line.In fact, in 1995 P&O offered $19.5 million for ANL. More importantly, P&O was prepared to take $120 million of ANL's debt liabilities, which were part of $330 million. So the actual sale price was about $140 million. This was a good deal. It was a good deal because they realised that it was going to be difficult to sell ANL, which was hamstrung by draconian conditions placed on it by the MUA, but it was the MUA's phobia and paranoia of P&O because of changes in the industry in the UK that prevented the sale. Of course the Labor Party did absolutely nothing about it, even though they were advocating it. The then Managing Director of P&O Australia, Mr Richard Hein, stated:In soccer terms, the decision not to sell ANL resulted in a score of Unions 1—Government 0. Although P&O paid more than a million dollars to be on the field, we hardly got a kick all day.The reality was that there was a buyer, there was a process, but it was hijacked and derailed. Even when they brought in Mr Neville Wran, their head consultant, to sort it out—and, as the previous speaker said, he was paid an enormous amount of money for six months—he too recommended to the government to take the offer, but it was not accepted.Over the period 1991 to 1997 ANL has continued to cost taxpayers well over $130 million. How responsible is that for a government? However, that loss was reduced to $1.6 million in the first year we came to power. In the first year the coalition was in office there was continual restructuring of ANL to save taxpayers an enormous amount of money.The new management of ANL has taken on the coalition's positive approach, and they are to be congratulated for that. The member for Hume (Mr Sharp) should also be congratulated as he gave the momentum for the turnaround when he was the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. However, the downfall in Asian markets means that ANL may soon require substantial taxpayer funded injections of equity if it stays in public ownership. The time to sell is now.The irony is that the MUA basically forced them to take up more Asian trade. There is an enormous amount of trade going between Australia and Japan. Most of those container movements to Japan are in refrigerated ETUs or 20-foot containers. They are full when they go to Japan and they are half empty on their way back. A lot of those strategic decisions were enforced by the MUA. The MUA tried to sell ANL to an American firm, but it was unsuccessful. Their job is not to dictate terms, and that is precisely what they have been doing.This government, as opposed to the ALP, does not take its orders from union bosses. We will sell ANL by 30 June 1998. Any doubt about this government's ability to conduct successful privatisations was certainly dispelled—and it is encouraging to see the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) in the chamber—by the hugely successful sale of Telstra. The difference with the sale of Telstra was that the lion's share, 80 or 90 per cent, was used to repay debt and the remainder went to the very successful program, the Natural Heritage Trust. This is in stark contrast to the Australian Labor Party, who were the leaders of capitalism with the privatisation of Qantas, Australian Airlines, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, our only aircraft manufacturer and the icon that they said they would never sell, the Commonwealth Bank. They all went to recurrent expenditure and that was the last that was seen of them.I am pleased to hear that the opposition is offering conditional support for this bill, which is the least they could do since they tried unsuccessfully to sell the company themselves. It was a litany of disasters. However, their amendments relating to employees having to work under Australian awards does smack of the usual hypocrisy since it was the ALP which secretly removed the restriction in 1993. It is interesting that the more things change the more they stay the same. I urge all members in this House to support this bill. It is a good piece of legislation. It will get rid of a very uneconomic enterprise for Australia and put it into private hands so that it can do the job just as the National Farmers Federation are doing with waterfront reform at Webb Dock.10:27:001110Cobb, Michael, MPMr COBBMF4ParkesNP10—Probably no area of policy better symbolises the paucity of business acumen of the Labor Party than the handling of the sale of ANL, especially by the previous Minister for Transport, Mr Brereton, and the previous Minister for Finance, Mr Beazley. Their whole management of the sale of ANL has been nothing less than a monumental stuff up.The sale process was dragged out for years without result. It exposed the sheer incompetence of Labor ministers that tried to handle it, it cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars—the previous speaker, the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony), spoke of a figure of $130 million in this regard—and it showed how beholden the ALP is to the trade union movement in this country, especially the Maritime Union of Australia, the wharfies. Above all else, it contrasts how much more proficiently the coalition can handle these issues and, interestingly, it also contrasts how differently the press report on these events.Imagine if the coalition had made errors to the degree that the previous government did. We would have been crucified in the media. They would have been calling for the ministers' resignations. There was not a whisper of this in the press. We were lucky to be able to get a paragraph forward on how they had dreadfully messed this up.By contrast, we have the present Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mr Vaile, and the present Minister for Finance and Administration, Mr Fahey, handling this so smoothly. Again, there has not been a mention in the press of how competent they are. It is well worth mentioning what an incredible job the present Minister for Finance and Administration, who is at the table, did with Telstra. It was oversubscribed by five times, I think. People were begging to buy the shares. It went through so smoothly and so successfully and is worth thousands of millions of dollars to the taxpayers of this country. I am sure that, come the next election, that will be recognised.Contrast that with the previous government's record. It cost well over $100 million, it delivered a result which came to zero at the end of day and was an acute embarrassment. It shows how the Labor Party knows absolutely nothing about business whatsoever. It cannot handle money. It just does not understand the scene at all.The saga of this sale goes back to 1991 when the Labor Party started speaking about it. They appointed Price Waterhouse in July 1991 to do a complete independent study of ANL. In August 1991—and this is running up to seven years ago now—they decided that they would sell 49 per cent of ANL. They announced that in the budget of that year. Price Waterhouse told them in the following year, `Look, it is not working, 49 per cent is not going to work. If you are going to sell the thing, sell 100 per cent for economy of scale reasons.' The Labor Party had not thought of it.In the budget of the next year, August 1992, the Labor government again said that they would sell 100 per cent of ANL. They called for expressions of interest as soon as practicable, and in May 1993, when they were bringing down the budget for that year, they again said that they would sell it. That is three budgets in a row when they said they would sell it. But they suddenly brought in this new caveat that, even though they were selling 100 per cent, foreign equity would be restricted to 49 per cent. Then a year later, for heaven's sake, they announced the start of the due diligence process—talk about dragging the feet; this is three years down the track—and in the May 1994 budget they announced that the due diligence process had started.In August of the same year the Labor government suddenly announced that the sale of ANL was not practical and withdrew ANL from sale and appointed, as the previous speaker said, Neville Wran, Malcolm Turnbull and a couple of others to do an assessment of ANL. They were paid reportedly $150,000 each for 52 days work, with the Minister for Transport at the time, the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton), who has just joined us, saying you could not give it away, even though they were giving taxpayers' money away to Neville Wran and Malcolm Turnbull. Let us hope that when the country becomes a republic it will be run better than that. They said they would be restructuring ANL for viability. In September 1994 ANL indeed sold its 25 per cent interest in Australian Stevedores Holding Pty Ltd for $28 million.In May of the following year, 1995—the Labor Party were still in power then, amaz ingly—P&O put in a conditional offer for 100 per cent of the shares of ANL. One would have thought that if the government had had half a brain they would have snapped that up. In fact, the ANL board, in August 1995, recommended that the sale be made to P&O. The board said:ANL is simply too small to have a secure future in international shipping.In other words, it should be sold off. But later that month the government announced that the sale would be subject to the veto of the Maritime Union of Australia, and the following month, September 1995, the ANL sale bill was passed by this House. I remember speaking to it.In the following month, things had slowed down because the wharfies were objecting to this and the government put the thing on hold. P&O, bless its heart, agreed to a one-month extension of the sale. Those negotiations with the wharfies went ahead, and in November 1995 the government announced that they were withdrawing ANL from sale and, to try and save face, that they were going to restructure ANL and then sell it. When were they going to sell it off? In the 14th year of government—like everything else they were going to do in the 14th year. They had been in power for 13 years, had these stop-start, on again off again sale situations and in the end delivered nothing. As we know, in March 1996 we had an election and the Labor Party were thrown out of office, not surprisingly.We announced in December last year that we would commence the sale of ANL and it would be completed by the end of this financial year. We asked for expressions of interest, which closed at the end of February, and I can report to the House that the expressions of interest that have come in are very encouraging indeed. What greater contrast could there be in the way the government business of this country is handled—us compared with them. It is chalk and cheese indeed. Probably no episode better demonstrates the competency of this government to be returned at the next election compared with them. You have only to see what is going on on the waterfront today. The former government is beholden to the waterfront. It did nothing about it for 13 years except waste $400 million in that area. We are not spending any taxpayers' money at all and have put in place legislation that will clear that up, as we will clear up the sale of ANL.10:36:001112Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—I thank all honourable members for their contributions in this debate on the ANL Sale Bill. It is a debate which is effectively a repeat of what occurred in this House in the earlier part of the 1990s, and of course the issue itself is a revisiting of that particular sale process that was initiated under Labor. As I indicated in the House yesterday, it was first suggested in 1991, it was announced in the 1991-92 budget and in 1995 it came to nothing. It fizzed out.One of the reasons that it did not eventuate, despite negotiations that occurred in those interim years from announcement up until the time of simply withdrawing, as Labor did in 1995, was the conditions that Labor was forced to put on the sale process at that time. Of course, in this debate Labor seeks to revisit that area. It seeks to reimpose the conditions that were deemed necessary, by the unions I suspect, back in the earlier part of the 1990s by moving an amendment, as the spokesman in this area, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Tanner), did in the course of his contribution to the debate.I would like to come straight to that amendment and indicate clearly that the government will oppose the amendment. The reason for this is, as I have indicated, that it did not work in the earlier part of this decade; it will not work now. The simple fact is that the Labor Party when in government recognised that it could not work then. That is why we see some hypocrisy in this repeat, this revisit, this attempt now to bring back the golden share process, which the honourable member for Melbourne spoke of in the course of his contribution.If I take the House back to Labor's attempt when in government, they proposed that there be a provision in the legislation that would allow the government to retain a share without voting rights, a share that really had no power. There is really no logic in why the government would sell yet retain a share. After considerable interference and considerable advice no doubt from the Maritime Union of Australia, the government were forced to acknowledge that the provisions in their legislation at that time would not work.I note that the former Minister for Transport, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton), and the former Minister for Finance, the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), issued a joint release on 30 November 1995. That release contained inter alia the paragraph I shall read. The two ministers said:However, the options in this regard were high cost and would have also involved industry and policy precedents which were not acceptable to the Government, and a sale has therefore not proved a viable option in the current circumstances.In their sales legislation, there was just nothing in the provision that had been included. The member for Melbourne suggested that the golden share would protect the Australian Labor Party policy of Australian crewing and would enable, as it was supposed to have done in 1995, the government to continue to ensure that ANL employed Australians in its privatised operation. That simply did not work then and it will not work now. The very same government issued a press release acknowledging that at that time.What we know occurred and what we know is the truth of the circumstances is that the Maritime Union of Australia and the preferred buyer—P&O—could not strike an acceptable deal and the sale was dropped. In other words, the Maritime Union of Australia said, `Unless it is sold on our conditions, then it will not happen. We will prevent it from happening.'This government does not sell its assets this way. The amendment would unnecessarily fetter the sale process which has been under way for some time, and the opposition has known of the sale for some months. The government has made it clear that it intends to sell Australian National Line. Despite that fact, it was only yesterday that we saw this attempt of new Labor to go back to the past. This new Labor, with its failed policies, is trying to repeat those policies or impose those policies on the government today.This government's policy in respect of the sale of ANL is consistent with policies that we have adopted in respect of the sale of all other government assets. It includes the process of guaranteeing in legislation the rights and entitlements of all employees of any particular entity—in this case, of Australian National Line—up to the time of sale. I shall move amendments to further clarify this in the consideration in detail stage.As I have said, one underlying factor links together all of the Labor Party's failed attempts to sell ANL from 1991 to 1995—that is, the ability of the Maritime Union of Australia to impose conditions on the then Labor government and the then Labor government being incapable of resisting the union's call at that time. It is a shame that that is still around, still alive and still well. I note that the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, who admitted that failure back in 1995 with that press release. has said that what Labor seeks to impose now did not work then. That is what the press release from the then Minister for Finance and the then Minister for Transport actually stated. It is just puzzling in the extreme to understand why currently there is an attempt to go back to that point, to go back to something that failed.Australian National Line has not traded well for some considerable time. There has been an accumulated loss since 1990-91 of $204 million. It has not been as great in recent times, but that is because the board, through a restructure that has taken place, has been able to stem the flow of losses—the flow of losses that has always been picked up by the Australian taxpayers. My recollection is that, in the last three years, the losses have been something like $16 million, $11 million and $1.6 million last year. But the accumulated loss is $204 million.I find it a little hard to understand why the honourable member for Melbourne puts such store in there being an Australian flag in shipping. The simple fact is that this company has reduced its operations yearly now for a long time. It is a competitive industry and that competitive industry allows anybody to come into the Australian shipping area. The bulk of Australian National Line's business has not been coastal shipping; it has been in the other trades area, as they describe it, the other zones of operation in the world—north of us in Asia—and of course it has to compete there.The government is seeking to stop the drain on taxpayers' money. That is exactly what the Labor Party set out to do earlier in the 1990s. There is no argument: we need to get out of this business which Australia has no right to be in. We can talk about having a flagship in the shipping area. We could perhaps argue that there is still some reason to have a flagship in the airline industry. Labor did not seek to do that. It got out of having an national airline with the sale of the taxpayers' shareholding in Qantas. The same reason applies here.There was no valid reason to be in the airline industry, and the reason is even more valid for shipping. Even though there was some prospect of profits in the airline, there is none in shipping in the foreseeable future. The losses will continue to mount and may well go back to some of the figures of the early 1990s. The shipping industry is very competitive now, and no-one knows what may occur in a year or two as a result of the currency crisis in Asia.The government will not accept this amendment. It would be a nonsense to allow once again the interference of the union hand in what is a sensible decision—one which the former government recognised and which this government reinforces. This government seeks to achieve that objective through the legislative process. I sincerely hope that the parliament supports this so that the sale can continue.We are now at the expressions of interest stage. Advertisements appeared in the domestic media on 29 January and in the overseas media on 12 and 13 February. Quite a number of domestic and offshore companies have expressed interest, and we will attempt to realise a sale which is in the best interests of Australian taxpayers. You cannot impose from the grave conditions on someone who takes over a process. When a business is sold, to put conditions on how it might operate in the future almost guarantees that you will impose another burden on Australian taxpayers. Why sell in the first place if you leave a burden which flows on after the sale has occurred?This legislation will facilitate a sensible approach to the sale of this particular asset. It will give the government the best opportunity to stop the drain on taxpayers' funds, and it will enable us to go to the market with confidence. We will be able to attract those who have an interest on the basis that they are buying a business as is—what they see is what they get. They will not come near us if the business for sale has a control factor built into it after the sale eventuates.I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to spend some time with the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith and to ask the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith to fill him in on what happened in 1995 that caused the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, along with the then Minister for Finance, to issue a release which said, `This is not what government policy can be about—now or ever. We cannot have golden shares; we cannot have conditions. It simply would not work. We tried, but I am sorry, John Coombs, and I am sorry, Tony Papa, you cannot expect us to continue to keep this imposition if you want the sale.'Unfortunately, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, who showed some sensible business acumen at that time, seems to have been rolled by Tony Papa and John Coombs then. It seems that his colleague the honourable member for Melbourne has simply been taken into that position and is under the control of the wine grower in Mr Coombs, and he is seeking to put forward the proposals Mr Coombs wanted then and wants again now. It did not work then and it will not work now.Please be sensible. Let us see if we can get a sale that gives the shipping industry in this country a chance and enables the subsequent owner of the Australian National Line to keep shipping here. We cannot allow the drain to continue because it does not make sense; and this government will not allow that to occur. We oppose the amendment. I thank honourable members for the broad support that has been given—with the exception of the amendment—and I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Tanner's amendment) stand part of the question.10:54:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)87Andren, P. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.*Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.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.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N.*Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.44Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Campbell, G. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.*Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W.*Sercombe, R. C. G. Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Abbott, A. J. Morris, P. F.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. Bevis, A. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the bill be now read a second time.11:00:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)87Andren, P. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.*Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.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.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Moylan, J. E. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Prosser, G. D.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Rocher, A. C. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N.*Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vaile, M. A. J.Vale, D. S. Wakelin, B. H.West, A. G. Williams, D. R.Wooldridge, M. R. L. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.44Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Campbell, G. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.*Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W.*Sercombe, R. C. G. Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Abbott, A. J. Morris, P. F.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. Bevis, A. R.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1116Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.11:05:001116Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 9:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 2), omit "Part 1 commences", substitute "Parts 1 and 1A, and Part 1 of Schedule 1, commence".(2) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 10), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) in Part 1A: (i) ANL; or (ii) a wholly-owned subsidiary of ANL; or (iii) a body corporate that was a wholly-owned subsidiary of ANL when Part 1A commenced and in which there is no share in which ANL does not hold a legal interest; and(3) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 27), after the definition of voting share , insert: wholly-owned subsidiary has the meaning given by subsection 4(2).(4) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:(2) For the purposes of this Act, a body corporate (the first body ) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of another body corporate (the second body ) if, and only if: (a) the first body has a share capital; and (b) there is no share in the first body that is not beneficially owned by: (i) the second body; or (ii) a company that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the second body because of any other application or applications of this subsection.(5) Page 3 (after line 17), after Part 1, insert:Part 1A—Transfer of assets etc. of ANLDivision 1—Preliminary5A Definitions In this Part, unless the contrary intention appears: asset means: (a) any legal or equitable estate or interest in real or personal property, whether actual, contingent or prospective; and (b) any right, power, privilege or immunity, whether actual, contingent or prospective. Commonwealth subsidiary has the meaning given by section 5B. contract includes: (a) a deed; and (b) a deed poll. Federal Court means the Federal Court of Australia. instrument includes a document. land registration official , in relation to land, means the Registrar of Titles or other proper officer of the State or Territory in which the land is situated. liability includes any liability, duty or obligation (however created or recorded), whether actual, contingent or prospective. sale scheme body means: (a) an ANL body; or (b) if all the shares in a particular company have vested in the Commonwealth under section 5C: (i) that company; or (ii) a wholly-owned subsidiary of that company. transferred employee means a person whose employment is transferred in accordance with a declaration under section 5M.5B Commonwealth subsidiary For the purposes of this Part, a body corporate is a Commonwealth subsidiary if, and only if: (a) the body corporate has a share capital; and (b) there is no share in the body corporate that is not beneficially owned by: (i) the Commonwealth; or (ii) a company that is a Commonwealth subsidiary because of any other application or applications of this section.Division 2—Transfers of assets, liabilities etc. of ANL bodies5C Transfer of assets by declaration (1) This section applies to an asset of an ANL body. (2) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, make any or all of the following declarations: (a) a declaration that a specified asset vests in a specified person at a specified time without any conveyance, transfer or assignment; (b) a declaration that a specified instrument relating to a specified asset continues to have effect after the asset vests in a specified person as if a reference in the instrument to the ANL body were a reference to the person; (c) a declaration that a specified person becomes the ANL body's successor in law in relation to a specified asset immediately after the asset vests in the person. Note: An asset or instrument may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way. (3) A declaration under subsection (2) has effect accordingly. (4) A copy of a declaration under subsection (2) is to be published in the Gazette within 21 days after the making of the declaration. (5) Subsection (2) does not prevent the ANL body from transferring an asset to a person otherwise than under that subsection. (6) If a share in a company vests in a person under this section, the company must register the person as the holder of the share. (7) Subsection (6) has effect despite anything in the Corporations Law or any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.5D Transfer of contractual rights and obligations by declaration (1) This section applies to a contract to which an ANL body is a party. (2) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, declare that the ANL body's rights and obligations under a specified contract: (a) cease to be rights and obligations of the body at a specified time; and (b) become rights and obligations of a specified person at that time. (3) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, declare that a specified contract continues to have effect after a specified time as if a reference in the contract to the ANL body were a reference to a specified person. (4) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, declare that a specified instrument relating to a specified contract continues to have effect, after the ANL body's rights and obligations under the contract become rights and obligations of a specified person, as if a reference in the instrument to the body were a reference to the person. (5) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, declare that a specified person becomes the ANL body's successor in law, in relation to the body's rights and obligations under a specified contract, immediately after the body's rights and obligations under the contract become rights and obligations of the person. (6) A declaration under this section has effect accordingly. (7) A copy of a declaration under this section is to be published in the Gazette within 21 days after the making of the declaration. (8) This section does not, by implication, limit section 5C. Note: A contract or instrument may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way.5E Transfer of liabilities by declaration (1) This section applies to a liability of an ANL body. (2) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, make any or all of the following declarations: (a) a declaration that a specified liability ceases to be a liability of the ANL body and becomes a liability of a specified person at a specified time; (b) a declaration that a specified instrument relating to a specified liability continues to have effect after the liability becomes a liability of a specified person as if a reference in the instrument to the body were a reference to the person; (c) a declaration that a specified person becomes the body's successor in law in relation to a specified liability immediately after the liability becomes a liability of the person. Note: A liability or instrument may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way. (3) A declaration under subsection (2) has effect accordingly. (4) A copy of a declaration under subsection (2) is to be published in the Gazette within 21 days after the making of the declaration.5F Consideration (1) A declaration may be made under this Division, whether or not the declaration is associated with the giving of consideration. (2) This section is enacted for the avoidance of doubt.Division 3—Transfers by the Commonwealth and Commonwealth subsidiaries5G Transfer of assets (1) This section applies to an asset that has vested in the Commonwealth, or in a Commonwealth subsidiary, under section 5C. (2) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, make any or all of the following declarations: (a) a declaration that a specified asset vests in a specified person at a specified time without any conveyance, transfer or assignment; (b) a declaration that a specified instrument relating to a specified asset continues to have effect after the asset vests in a specified person as if a reference in the instrument to the Commonwealth, or to the Commonwealth subsidiary in question, were a reference to the person; (c) a declaration that a specified person becomes the Commonwealth's, or the Commonwealth subsidiary's, successor in law in relation to a specified asset immediately after the asset vests in the person. Note: An asset or instrument may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way. (3) A declaration under subsection (2) has effect accordingly. (4) A copy of a declaration under subsection (2) is to be published in the Gazette within 21 days after the making of the declaration. (5) Subsection (2) does not prevent the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth subsidiary from transferring an asset to a person otherwise than under that subsection.5H Transfer of contractual rights and obligations (1) This section applies to a contract where rights and obligations under the contract became rights and obligations of the Commonwealth, or of a Commonwealth subsidiary, under section 5D. (2) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, declare that the Commonwealth's rights and obligations, or the rights and obligations of the Commonwealth subsidiary in question, under a specified contract: (a) cease to be rights and obligations of the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth subsidiary at a specified time; and (b) become rights and obligations of a specified person at that time. (3) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, declare that a specified contract continues to have effect after a specified time as if a reference in the contract to the Commonwealth, or to the Commonwealth subsidiary, were a reference to a specified person. (4) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, declare that: (a) a specified instrument relating to a specified contract continues to have effect, after the Commonwealth's rights and obligations under the contract become rights and obligations of a specified person; or (b) a specified instrument relating to a specified contract continues to have effect, after the rights and obligations of the Commonwealth subsidiary under the contract become rights and obligations of a specified person; as if a reference in the instrument to the Commonwealth, or to the Commonwealth subsidiary, were a reference to the person. (5) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, declare that: (a) a specified person becomes the Commonwealth's successor in law, in relation to the Commonwealth's rights and obligations under a specified contract; or (b) a specified person becomes the Commonwealth subsidiary's successor in law, in relation to the rights and obligations of the Commonwealth subsidiary under a specified contract; immediately after the Commonwealth's rights and obligations, or the rights and obligations of the Commonwealth subsidiary, under the contract become rights and obligations of the person. (6) A declaration under this section has effect accordingly. (7) A copy of a declaration under this section is to be published in the Gazette within 21 days after the making of the declaration. (8) This section does not, by implication, limit section 5G. Note: A contract or instrument may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way.5J Transfer of liabilities (1) This section applies to a liability that became a liability of the Commonwealth, or of a Commonwealth subsidiary, under section 5E. (2) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, make any or all of the following declarations: (a) a declaration that a specified liability ceases to be a liability of the Commonwealth, or of the Commonwealth subsidiary in question, and becomes a liability of a specified person at a specified time; (b) a declaration that a specified instrument relating to a specified liability continues to have effect after the liability becomes a liability of a specified person as if a reference in the instrument to the Commonwealth, or to the Commonwealth subsidiary, were a reference to the person; (c) a declaration that a specified person becomes the Commonwealth's, or the Commonwealth subsidiary's, successor in law in relation to a specified liability immediately after the liability becomes a liability of the person. Note: A liability or instrument may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way. (3) A declaration under subsection (2) has effect accordingly. (4) A copy of a declaration under subsection (2) is to be published in the Gazette within 21 days after the making of the declaration.5K Consideration (1) A declaration may be made under this Division, whether or not the declaration is associated with the giving of consideration. (2) This section is enacted for the avoidance of doubt.Division 4—Proceeds of asset transfers to be paid to the Commonwealth5L Proceeds of asset transfers to be paid to the Commonwealth (1) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by written notice given to an ANL body, direct that, if the body receives any consideration in respect of: (a) the sale or transfer by the body of a specified asset in accordance with a direction under section 68A of the ANL Act 1956 ; or (b) the transfer of a specified asset of the body under section 5C; or (c) the transfer, under section 5D, of the body's rights and obligations under a specified contract; the body must pay to the Commonwealth an amount equal to the consideration. Note: An asset or contract may be specified by name, by inclusion in a specified class or in any other way. (2) The body must comply with the direction.Division 5—Transfer of staff5M Transfer of staff from a sale scheme body (1) This section applies to an employee of a sale scheme body. (2) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by written instrument, declare that a specified employee: (a) ceases to be employed by a sale scheme body at a specified time (the employee's transfer time ); and (b) is taken to have been engaged by a specified body corporate, to which shares in or assets of the sale scheme body have been (or are to be) transferred, as an employee of the body corporate at the employee's transfer time. (3) A declaration under this section has effect accordingly. (4) A time specified under subsection (2) must be a time that occurs: (a) at or before the time that the transfer referred to in paragraph (2)(b) takes place; or (b) within 12 months after the transfer takes place. (5) A copy of a declaration under subsection (2) is to be published in the Gazette within 21 days after the making of the declaration.5N Terms and conditions—transferred employees (1) A person who is a transferred employee is taken to have been engaged by the specified body corporate in question on the terms and conditions that applied to the person, immediately before the emplo yee's transfer time, as an employee of the sale scheme body in question. (2) A reference in subsection (1) to terms and conditions is a reference to terms and conditions that are set out in: (a) a written contract of employment; or (b) an award (as defined by section 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ); or (c) a certified agreement (as defined by section 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ); or (d) an Australian Workplace Agreement (as defined by section 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ); or (e) a certified agreement (as defined by section 4 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 as in force immediately before the commencement of Schedule 8 to the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 ) that continues to have effect because of Part 2 of that Schedule.5P Accrued benefits—transferred employees A person who is a transferred employee is taken to have accrued an entitlement to benefits, in connection with the employee's engagement by the specified body corporate in question, that is equivalent to the entitlement that the person had accrued, as an employee of the sale scheme body in question, immediately before the employee's transfer time.5Q Continuity of service of transferred employees The service of a transferred employee as an employee of the specified body corporate in question is taken, for all purposes, to have been continuous with the service of the employee, immediately before the employee's transfer time, as an employee of the sale scheme body in question.5R Termination payments—transferred employees A transferred employee is not entitled to receive any payment or other benefit merely because he or she stopped being an employee of the sale scheme body in question as a result of this Division.5S Variation of terms and conditions—transferred employees (1) This Division does not prevent the terms and conditions of a transferred employee's employment after the employee's transfer time from being varied: (a) in accordance with those terms and conditions; or (b) by or under a law, award, determination or agreement. (2) In this section: vary , in relation to terms and conditions, includes: (a) omitting any of those terms and conditions; or (b) adding to those terms and conditions; or (c) substituting new terms or conditions for any of those terms and conditions.Division 6—Exemption from stamp duty etc.5T Exemption from stamp duty etc. (1) In this section: designated matter means: (a) the sale or transfer by an ANL body of an asset to the Commonwealth, or to a Commonwealth subsidiary, in accordance with a direction under section 68A of the ANL Act 1956 ; or (b) an agreement relating to a sale or transfer covered by paragraph (a); or (c) the receipt of money by an ANL body, or by a person acting on behalf of an ANL body, in respect of a sale or transfer covered by paragraph (a); or (d) a transfer to the Commonwealth, or to a Commonwealth subsidiary, under section 5C, 5D or 5E; or (e) an agreement relating to a transfer covered by paragraph (d); or (f) the receipt of money by an ANL body, or by a person acting on behalf of an ANL body, in respect of a transfer covered by paragraph (d); or (g) a transfer to the Commonwealth, or to a Commonwealth subsidiary, under section 5G, 5H or 5J; or (h) an agreement relating to a transfer covered by paragraph (g); or (i) the receipt of money by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth subsidiary, or by a person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth subsidiary, in respect of a transfer covered by paragraph (g); or (j) the sale or transfer by the Commonwealth to a Commonwealth subsidiary of an asset that has vested in the Commonwealth under section 5C; or (k) an agreement relating to a sale or transfer covered by paragraph (j); or (l) the receipt of money by the Commonwealth, or by a person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth, in respect of a sale or transfer covered by paragraph (j); or (m) the sale or transfer by a Commonwealth subsidiary to the Commonwealth of an asset that has vested in the Commonwealth subsidiary under section 5C; or (n) an agreement relating to a sale or transfer covered by paragraph (m); or (o) the receipt of money by a Commonwealth subsidiary, or by a person acting on behalf of the Commonwealth subsidiary, in respect of a sale or transfer covered by paragraph (m). (2) Stamp duty or other tax is not payable under a law of a State or Territory in respect of: (a) a designated matter; or (b) anything done (including a transaction entered into or an instrument or document made, executed, lodged or given) because of, or for a purpose connected with or arising out of, a designated matter.Division 7—Sale scheme body to assist the Commonwealth and ANL5U Implementation of this Part Without otherwise limiting the meaning of the expression, a reference in this Division to the implementation of this Part includes a reference to: (a) the sale or transfer by the Commonwealth of an asset that has vested in the Commonwealth under section 5C; and (b) the sale or transfer by a Commonwealth subsidiary of an asset that has vested in it under section 5C; and (c) the sale or transfer by the Commonwealth of rights and obligations that have become rights and obligations of the Commonwealth under section 5D; and (d) the sale or transfer by a Commonwealth subsidiary of rights and obligations that have become its rights and obligations under section 5D; and (e) the transfer by the Commonwealth of liabilities that have become liabilities of the Commonwealth under section 5E; and (f) the transfer by a Commonwealth subsidiary of liabilities that have become its liabilities under section 5E; and (g) the sale or transfer of shares or assets of an ANL body; and (h) the formulation of the policies and approaches to be adopted by the Minister for Finance and Administration in connection with: (i) the implementation of this Part; and (ii) any sale or transfer of a kind referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g).5V Assistance given by a sale scheme body or director in connection with the implementation of this Part (1) A sale scheme body may, on the body's own initiative, assist the Commonwealth or ANL in connection with the implementation of this Part. (2) A director of a sale scheme body may, on the director's own initiative, assist the Commonwealth or ANL in connection with the implementation of this Part. (3) A sale scheme body must, when requested in writing by the Minister for Finance and Administration to do so, assist the Commonwealth or ANL in connection with the implementation of this Part. The assistance is to be given within the period, and in the form and manner, specified in the request. (4) A director of a sale scheme body must, when requested in writing by the Minister for Finance and Administration to do so, assist the Commonwealth or ANL in connection with the implementation of this Part. The assistance is to be given within the period, and in the form and manner, specified in the request. (5) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by written notice given to a sale scheme body, give directions to the body about the exercise of the body's powers under subsection (1). The body must comply with the direction. (6) The Minister may, by written notice given to a director of a sale scheme body, give directions to the director about the exercise of the director's powers under subsection (2). The director must comply with the direction. (7) To avoid doubt, the giving of assistance as mentioned in subsection (1), (2), (3) or (4), the making of a request under subsection (3) or (4), or the giving of or compliance with a direction under subsection (5) or (6), does not result in a contravention of, or give rise to a liability or remedy under: (a) a provision of the Corporations Law or any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or (b) a rule of common law or equity (other than a rule of administrative law). Note: The expression sale scheme body includes ANL (see section 5A).5W Giving of assistance—ancillary provisions (1) The assistance mentioned in subsection 5V(1), (2), (3) or (4) may take the form of: (a) the giving of information; or (b) the giving of financial assistance (within the meaning of section 205 of the Corporations Law); or (c) the giving of a financial benefit to a related party (within the meaning of Part 3.2A of the Corporations Law); or (d) the provision, by the directors or employees of a sale scheme body, of facilities, information and other assistance in connection with the conduct of: (i) a due diligence procedure or a similar process; or (ii) a market briefing or a similar process; or (e) the entering into of an agreement with the Commonwealth or ANL. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), if section 205 of the Corporations Law is repealed and replaced by another provision of the Corporations Law that deals with the giving of financial assistance by companies, the reference in that paragraph to section 205 is to be read as a reference to the replacement provision. (3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), if Part 3.2A of the Corporations Law is repealed and replaced by another provision of the Corporations Law that deals with the giving of financial benefits to related parties, the reference in that paragraph to Part 3.2A is to be read as a reference to the replacement provision. (4) Subsection (1) does not, by implication, limit the forms in which assistance may be given. (5) Section 5V does not, by implication, limit any rights that are conferred on shareholders by other laws. (6) Section 5V does not, by implication, limit: (a) the executive power of the Commonwealth to enter into an agreement; or (b) the power of ANL to enter into an agreement; or (c) the capacity of a sale scheme body, or a director of a sale scheme body, to enter into an agreement with the Commonwealth or ANL. (7) Section 5V extends to the giving of assistance outside Australia, whether or not in a foreign country.5X Use of information by the Commonwealth or an ANL body (1) This section applies to information obtained under section 5V. (2) The Commonwealth, an ANL body or an associated person, may use the information for a purpose in connection with the implementation of this Part. (3) The Commonwealth, an ANL body or an associated person, may disclose the information for a purpose in connection with the implementation of this Part. (4) The Commonwealth, an ANL body or an associated person, may use or disclose the information for a purpose in connection with: (a) the Commonwealth's capacity as a shareholder in a sale scheme body; or (b) the ANL body's capacity as a shareholder in a sale scheme body; so long as the use or disclosure does not involve giving the information to a person who is not an associated person. (5) To avoid doubt, the use or disclosure of information as mentioned in subsection (2), (3) or (4) does not result in a contravention of, or give rise to a liability or remedy under: (a) a provision of the Corporations Law or any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or (b) a rule of common law or equity (other than a rule of administrative law). (6) In this section: associated person means: (a) a Minister; or (b) an individual who holds an office under, or is employed by, the Commonwealth; or (c) an officer or employee within the meaning of the Public Service Act 1922 ; or (d) a person who performs services for or on behalf of the Commonwealth in connection with: (i) the implementation of this Part; or (ii) the Commonwealth's capacity as a shareholder in a sale scheme body; or (e) a director of an ANL body; or (f) an officer or employee of an ANL body; or (g) a person who performs services for or on behalf of an ANL body in connection with: (i) the implementation of this Part; or (ii) the ANL body's capacity as a shareholder in a sale scheme body.5Y Agreements relating to the protection of information (1) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, on behalf of the Commonwealth, enter into an agreement with a person relating to the protection of information: (a) that is obtained under section 5V; and (b) the publication of which might be expected to prejudice substantially a sale scheme body's commercial interests. (2) An agreement under subsection (1) may be enforced as if it were a contract. (3) Subsection (1) does not, by implication, limit the executive power of the Commonwealth to enter into agreements. (4) ANL may enter into an agreement with a person relating to the protection of information: (a) that is obtained under section 5V; and (b) the publication of which might be expected to prejudice substantially a sale scheme body's commercial interests. (5) An agreement under subsection (4) may be enforced as if it were a contract. (6) Subsection (4) does not, by implication, limit the power of ANL to enter into agreements.5Z Sale scheme body's obligations to disclose information (1) To avoid doubt, the mere fact that particular information was requested, required or given under section 5V is not a ground on which a sale scheme body can be required to disclose or notify that, or any other, information under: (a) a provision of the Corporations Law; or (b) a provision of the listing rules of a securities exchange. (2) In this section: listing rules has the same meaning as in section 1001A of the Corporations Law. securities exchange has the same meaning as in section 1001A of the Corporations Law. (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), if section 1001A of the Corporations Law is repealed and replaced by another provision of the Corporations Law that deals with continuous disclosure by listed companies, a reference in that subsection to section 1001A is to be read as a reference to the replacement provision.Division 8—Injunctions5ZA InjunctionsRestraining injunctions (1) If a person has engaged, is engaging or is proposing to engage in any conduct in contravention of this Part, the Federal Court may, on the application of the Minister for Finance and Administration, grant an injunction: (a) restraining the person from engaging in the conduct; and (b) if, in the court's opinion, it is desirable to do so—requiring the person to do something. Performance injunctions (2) If: (a) a person has refused or failed, or is refusing or failing, or is proposing to refuse or fail, to do an act or thing; and (b) the refusal or failure was, is or would be a contravention of this Part; the Federal Court may, on the application of the Minister for Finance and Administration, grant an injunction requiring the person to do that act or thing.5ZB Interim injunctions Grant of interim injunction (1) If an application is made to the court for an injunction under section 5ZA, the court may, before considering the application, grant an interim injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct of a kind referred to in that section. No undertakings as to damages (2) The court is not to require an applicant for an injunction under section 5ZA, as a condition of granting an interim injunction, to give any undertakings as to damages. 5ZC Discharge etc. of injunctions The court may discharge or vary an injunction granted under this Division.5ZD Certain limits on granting injunctions not to applyRestraining injunctions (1) The power of the court under this Division to grant an injunction restraining a person from engaging in conduct of a particular kind may be exercised: (a) if the court is satisfied that the person has engaged in conduct of that kind—whether or not it appears to the court that the person intends to engage again, or to continue to engage, in conduct of that kind; or (b) if it appears to the court that, if an injunction is not granted, it is likely that the person will engage in conduct of that kind—whether or not the person has previously engaged in conduct of that kind and whether or not there is an imminent danger of substantial damage to any person if the person engages in conduct of that kind.Performance injunctions (2) The power of the court under this Division to grant an injunction requiring a person to do an act or thing may be exercised: (a) if the court is satisfied that the person has refused or failed to do that act or thing—whether or not it appears to the court that the person intends to refuse or fail again, or to continue to refuse or fail, to do that act or thing; or (b) if it appears to the court that, if an injunction is not granted, it is likely that the person will refuse or fail to do that act or thing—whether or not the person has previously refused or failed to do that act or thing and whether or not there is an imminent danger of substantial damage to any person if the person refuses or fails to do that act or thing.5ZE Other powers of the court unaffected The powers conferred on the court under this Division are in addition to, and not instead of, any other powers of the court, whether conferred by this Act or otherwise.Division 9—Miscellaneous5ZF Transfers of land may be registered (1) This section applies if: (a) any right, title or interest in particular land vests in a person under section 5C or 5G; and (b) there is lodged with a land registration official a certificate that: (i) is signed by the Minister for Finance and Administration; and (ii) identifies the land; and (iii) states that the right, title or interest has become vested in the person under section 5C or 5G, as the case requires. (2) The land registration official may: (a) register the matter in a way that is the same as, or similar to, the way in which dealings in land of that kind are registered; and (b) deal with, and give effect to, the certificate. (3) A document that appears to be a certificate under subsection (1) is to be taken to be such a certificate, and to have been properly given, unless the contrary is established.5ZG Charges may be registered (1) This section applies if: (a) a person becomes, under this Part, the holder of a charge; and (b) there is lodged with the Australian Securities Commission a certificate that: (i) is signed by the Minister for Finance and Administration; and (ii) identifies the charge; and (iii) states that the person has, under this Part, become the holder of the charge.(2) The Australian Securities Commission may, subject to the payment of any applicable fee: (a) register the matter in a way that is the same as, or similar to, the way in which assignments of charges are registered; and (b) deal with, and give effect to, the certificate; as if the certificate were a notice of assignment of the charge that had been properly lodged with the Commission.(3) In this section: charge means a charge created in any way, and includes a mortgage and an agreement to give or execute a charge or mortgage (whether on demand or otherwise). holder , in relation to a charge, includes a person in whose favour a charge is to be given or executed (whether on demand or otherwise) under an agreement. 5ZH This Part does not modify registers kept by land registration officials This Part, so far as it provides for the interpretation of references in other instruments, does not modify any register kept by a land registration official under a law of a State or Territory.5ZI Lands Acquisition Act does not apply to this Part The Lands Acquisition Act 1989 does not apply in relation to anything done under this Part.5ZJ Legislative Instruments Act does not apply to this Part To avoid doubt, an instrument made under this Part is not taken to be a legislative instrument for the purposes of the Legislative Instruments Act 1998 .5ZK Transfer of pending proceedings (1) This section applies if, as a result of a declaration made by the Minister for Finance and Administration under this Part, a person (the successor ) becomes the successor in law of another person (the original person ) at a particular time in relation to a particular asset, liability, right, benefit or obligation. (2) If any proceedings to which the original person was a party: (a) were pending in any court or tribunal immediately before that time; and (b) related, in whole or in part, to the asset, liability, right, benefit or obligation, as the case may be; then, unless the Minister for Finance and Administration otherwise determines in writing in relation to the proceedings, the successor is, by force of this subsection, substituted for the original person as a party to the proceedings to the extent to which the proceedings relate to the asset, liability, right, benefit or obligation, as the case requires.5ZL Operation of this Part does not place a person in breach of contract etc. To avoid doubt, the operation of this Part is not to be regarded as: (a) placing a person in breach of contract or confidence; or (b) otherwise making a person guilty of a civil wrong; or (c) placing a person in breach of any contractual provision prohibiting, restricting or regulating: (i) the assignment or transfer of any asset, liability, right or obligation; or (ii) the disclosure of any information; or (d) releasing any surety from any of the surety's obligations in relation to a liability or obligation that is transferred under this Part.5ZM Compensation—constitutional safety-net (1) If: (a) apart from this section, the operation of this Part would result in the acquisition of property from a person otherwise than on just terms; and (b) the acquisition would be invalid because of paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution; the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation of a reasonable amount to the person in respect of the acquisition. (2) If the Commonwealth and the person do not agree on the amount of the compensation, the person may institute proceedings in the Federal Court for the recovery from the Commonwealth of such reasonable amount of compensation as the court determines. (3) In this section: acquisition of property has the same meaning as in paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution. just terms has the same meaning as in paragraph 51(xxxi) of the Constitution.5ZN Delegation (1) The Minister for Finance and Administration may, by writing, delegate to: (a) the Secretary to the Department of Finance and Administration; or (b) the Chief Executive of the Office of Asset Sales and IT Outsourcing; or (c) a person holding or performing the duties of a Senior Executive Service office (whether or not in the Department of Finance and Administration); all or any of the functions and powers conferred on the Minister for Finance and Administration by this Part. (2) In this section: Senior Executive Service office has the same meaning as in the Public Service Act 1922 .5ZO Minister not taken to be director of ANL body The Minister for Finance and Administration is not taken to be a director of an ANL body for the purposes of the Corporations Law because of the powers in relation to the body that are conferred on the Minister by this Act.5ZP This Part does not authorise the imposition of taxation This Part does not authorise the imposition of taxation within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution.(6) Clause 35, page 21 (line 21) to page 22 (line 3), omit the clause, substitute:35 Removal of ANL's past losses and foreign tax credits (1) A loss (whether of an income or a capital nature) incurred by an ANL body in: (a) an income year ending before the income year in which the sale day occurs; or (b) the period commencing at the start of the income year in which the sale day occurs and ending on the sale day; is not deductible in the income year in which the sale day occurs or in any subsequent income year. (2) In calculating the tax loss of an ANL body for the income year in which the sale day occurs, disregard any notional loss that the body has for the period commencing at the start of the income year and ending on the sale day. (3) In calculating the net capital loss of an ANL body for the income year in which the sale day occurs, disregard any notional net capital loss that the body has in respect of the period commencing at the start of the income year and ending on the sale day. (4) An ANL body is not entitled to a foreign tax credit under Division 18 of Part III of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in respect of: (a) its assessable income of the year of income in which the sale day occurs; or (b) its assessable income of any subsequent year of income; to the extent that the credit arises from the payment of foreign tax in respect of foreign income derived before the end of the sale day. (5) This section has effect despite anything in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 or the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 . (6) An expression used in this section and in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act, unless the contrary intention appears. (7) An expression used in this section and in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (but not in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 ) has the same meaning in this section as it has in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 , unless the contrary intention appears.(7) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 2), insert:Part 1—Amendments commencing on Royal Assent1A Subsection 45(1) Omit "ANL" (first occurring), substitute "an ANL body".1B Subsection 45(1) Omit "ANL" (second and third occurring), substitute "the body".1C Paragraphs 45(1)(a) and (b) Omit "ANL", substitute "the body".1D Subsection 45(2) Omit "ANL", substitute "an ANL body".1E Subsection 45(3) Omit "ANL" (first occurring), substitute "an ANL body".1F Subsection 45(3) Omit "ANL" (second and third occurring), substitute "the body".1G At the end of section 45 Add: (4) In this section: ANL body means ANL or a body corporate that is a subsidiary of ANL.1H After section 68 Insert:68A Minister may give directions to ANL (1) While the Commonwealth is the legal or beneficial owner of all of the shares in ANL, the Minister for Finance and Administration may, after consultation with the Board, give to ANL such written directions about the performance of ANL's functions or the exercise of ANL's powers as appear to the Minister to be necessary. (2) A copy of a direction under subsection (1) is to be published in the Gazette within 21 days after the giving of the direction. (3) The Minister for Finance and Administration is not taken to be a director of ANL for the purposes of the Corporations Law because of the powers in relation to ANL that are conferred on the Minister by this section. (4) It is the duty of the Board to ensure that ANL complies with any direction given to ANL under subsection (1). (5) To avoid doubt, the giving of a direction under subsection (1), or compliance with such a direction, does not result in a contravention of, or give rise to a liability or remedy under: (a) a provision of the Corporations Law, or any other law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory; or (b) a rule of common law or equity (other than a rule of administrative law).(8) Schedule 1, page 25 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:Part 2—Amendments commencing on the sale day(9) Schedule 1, item 10, page 25 (lines 22 and 23), omit the item.Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to introduce these government amendments to the ANL Sale Bill 1997 . As I indicated at the second reading stage, the sale of ANL is now under way. The government's preference is to sell Australian National Line as a whole and as an ongoing business. Our intention is to complete the sale of ANL by mid-1998. Advertisements seeking registrations of interest have been placed in the national and international press, as I have already stated, and we will continue with that process.Honourable members will recall that when my colleague the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) introduced this bill, he foreshadowed the need for government amendments. The amendments that I am introducing today provide additional flexibility for the sale of Australian National Line. Generally, they are similar to provisions contained in other sale legislation, such as the AIDC Sale Act.The amendments will provide for: powers to vest specified ANL assets, contractual rights and obligations and liabilities in specified persons; the transfer by the Commonwealth or Commonwealth subsidiaries of assets, contractual rights and obligations and liabilities that have been vested in the Commonwealth to specified persons; the provision of ANL assistance to the Commonwealth; use and disclosure of information by ANL or the Commonwealth; the power of direction to ANL; the removal of the availability to a buyer of ANL tax losses and other benefits; and provisions relating to the transfer of ANL staff to another employer body, protecting the terms of employment through the transfer.The power to vest assets allows the minister or a delegate to have assets, contractual rights and obligations and liabilities of ANL transferred to a specified person. The creation of this power, which has been similarly used in other Commonwealth asset sales, such as AIDC, reserves the government's position on the final sales structure until all offers from potential buyers are considered. (Quorum formed) It will also facilitate the mechanics of completing the sale once the best outcome is determined, taking into account general sale objectives such as: optimisation of return to the Commonwealth; removal of Commonwealth exposure and liabilities; and the equitable treatment of staff up to the sale.The ANL board and management have been providing every assistance to the sale, and I am very grateful for that. Legislative provisions will legally support that assistance and will place ANL in the same position on this issue as other recently privatised Commonwealth entities. Provisions relating to the use and disclosure of information and the power of direction are much the same as provisions in other Commonwealth sale legislation. These provide additional flexibility to the sale process.The issue of ANL tax was addressed in the original bill. The amendments proposed strengthen and clarify these provisions. The goal is to ensure that the buyers of ANL will not have the benefit of ANL's favourable tax status. (Extension of time granted) Staff entitlement provisions similar to those used in other pieces of comparable legislation such as the airports sale and the Health Insurance Commission legislation are now also being proposed and should provide greater certainty for staff. I commend the amendments to the House and table a supplementary explanatory memorandum. Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.1128Bill (on motion by Mr Fahey)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1128r4361128Debate resumed from 4 March, on motion by Mr Warwick Smith:That the bill be now read a second time.11:12:001128Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) its cuts to child care ($820 million over two budgets, leading to increased fees and reduced Childcare Assistance, lower quality care, and closure of services);(2) the chaos it has brought on the industry (particularly outside school hours care) by its mismanagement of the payments arrangements, despite many warnings from the industry;(3) in particular, the uncertainty it has caused the industry, first by changing its mind on the payment arrangements, and then by bringing forward an interim measure, so that the only certainty is that the system will change again within 30 months".Last night a woman asked me why the Howard government has made such drastic cuts to child care. She asked whether it was about budget cuts or whether it was the case that this Prime Minister (Mr Howard) wants women out of the work force. As I said to her last night, and I will say it to the House today, I think it is a combination of both. This government has cut $820 million over two budgets from child care and $500 million from nursing homes because it believes that families should look after themselves.When I asked the Prime Minister a number of times last year where an elderly person would get the money to go into a nursing home, he said that their families could pay. This is the government's view, of course, about young people and children as well. If you have a young adult, 18 to 20 years of age, living at home and unemployed and your family income is $35,000 a year, as a result of this government's cuts your family will now be $55 a week worse off. If you also have a child needing child care, as a result of this government's budget cuts you could also be paying up to $20 a week more for your child in child care. This is a mean-spirited government that is removing the critical supports that families need when they are caring for children, supporting young adults or caring for their elderly relatives.But when it comes to child-care cuts, there is no doubt at all in the minds of Australian women that this government has a different, additional objective: this Howard government wants them out of the work force. As one young mother in my electorate said to me last year, `There is just no incentive to continue two full-time jobs when it appears that we are penalised for doing the right thing, which is supporting ourselves and our children. Or is this the hidden agenda,' she said, `to get women out of the work force?'It is no wonder that they wonder about this. It is no wonder that Australian women are facing very difficult choices as a result of major cuts to child care that this government has implemented. These cuts included: abolition of the additional income allowed for additional dependent children when assessing eligibility for child-care assistance; reduction of child-care assistance cut-offs for second and subsequent children; extending the range of fringe benefits for child-care assistance income testing; capping access to child-care assistance at 50 hours a week; freezing child-care assistance and child-care cash rebate fee ceilings for two years—that means no indexation either last year or this year; reducing the child-care cash rebate; and removing operational subsidies worth $100 million over four years from community based child-care centres.In a speech I made about six months ago I related that, at a meeting in Melbourne of 40 private child-care providers three weeks after the introduction of the 50-hour cap, almost all reported a reduction in usage, and those in lower income areas reported a drop of up to 25 per cent in full-time places. The evidence of community based long day care centres closing or losing considerable numbers of children because of fee rises is now rolling in.Now, of course, we have a much clearer picture of what this government's policies mean for families who need child care. Last week the Queensland Child Care Coalition released a survey revealing that 3,255 children have been removed from 244 services in Queensland alone in the past year. More than 3,000 children have been taken out of child care in Queensland alone as a result of this government's budget cuts. This research reveals that families are now having to improvise with their care arrangements. Parents are having to reduce their hours of work, leave work altogether, or rely on their neighbours or backyard care for their child care.This government do not seem to understand—but Australian women certainly do—that child care is a necessity; it is not a luxury. In the majority of families, especially those on lower incomes, women need to work to hold their family budgets together. If they do not have reasonably priced child care, they face the impossible choice: give up work or use substandard or unreliable child-care options.What we see happening out there in the workplace is that women are now becoming what is called `discouraged workers'. There was a major article in the press this week that showed that more than two-thirds of those not looking for work anymore are women. More than 200,000 people have been discouraged from seeking jobs because they could not find or afford child care. What an indictment of this government's attitude to supporting families and particularly to supporting the choices women want to make about their lives. This is the reality of this government's attack on child care: 200,000 people discouraged from seeking work because they could not find or afford child care.Now the cuts are impacting with their full severity. At the same time, surprisingly enough, the government have the election looming. That is why we are here today: the government have to bring this issue back into the House, because they know that if they push ahead with their plan to pay child-care assistance direct to parents there will be chaos out there in the child-care sector—in child-care centres, in family day care around the country. One thing this government do not want to do—on top of all the discouragement to work, on top of all the increases in child-care fees—is have additional chaos created in the child-care sector.It is the same tactic that we have seen from this government as far as aged care is concerned. We had the deferral of the extra daily fee four times. No doubt, this will just be another deferral. No doubt, once the election is out of the way, if the unfortunate happens and this government are returned, parents will be saying, `What are they going to do next? What are they going to do next to my child care? How much more expensive will they make it? And what greater chaos will they bring on the child-care sector?' This is the way the government have gone about implementing their policies in relation to families. They have created uncertainty and confusion. At times, particularly as I will go on to demonstrate, in the out of school hours care sector, it has bordered on total chaos.There is no excuse for this mess. It is the result of a government that do not consult and obviously do not do their homework. The government must not like to hear the facts from parents, child-care providers and child-care workers before they make their policies, because we would not be debating this bill in the House of Representatives today if the government had consulted the child-care sector and consulted parents before they went ahead with these changes.These changes, as I said, are now going to extend to out of school hours care. As a result of last year's budget changes, we have had the extension of significant child-care cuts to out of school hours care. This government have taken operational subsidies away from out of school hours care. A representative from the National Out-of-School Hours Care Association said last year:The reality is that there are some services that may close because they will no longer have a cash flow and that is of great concern. The government's attack on out of school hours care shows that they have no understanding of how the services actually work, of how fragile they are and of how dependent they are on community goodwill, particularly the goodwill of parents.These centres operate with part-time, casual and volunteer staff. In many cases they do not have permanent premises or storage space. They operate out of schools—in my own younger child's school, it operates from a portable out in the yard—out of scout halls and out of community facilities. The administrative work is often done by parents, who are the busiest people in our community. They cater to a shifting population of children. This is a critical issue that the government should have considered before they took the operational subsidies from out of school hours care. For example, a service might have 250 children on their books for 60 places. They need operational subsidies to help them run such complex and underresourced enterprises.In my electorate we recently carried out a survey of out of school hours care services. We sent it to all the schools in the electorate where out of school hours care services operate. I think the comments that have come back from parents about the changes the government is putting in place are very revealing. They are very revealing because they show a couple of very fundamental facts about Australian society today which this government does not seem to understand because its whole approach is so stuck in the past: that is, that out of school hours care is now an essential resource for Australian families. Why is that? It is because both parents in the vast majority of families, particularly low income families, have to work—that is the reality. They have to work, and that means they have to have access to decent, affordable child care, including out of school hours care. It is a reality that, unfortunately for the parents of Australia, does not seem to have registered with this government.An increasing problem has been created as a result of this government's workplace relations legislation; a problem which has made life so much more difficult, particularly for part-time workers in industries where their jobs are vulnerable. Families in those situations have to conform to the demands of their employers or risk losing their jobs. They cannot just change their working hours to suit the needs of the out of school hours service or any other child-care service. As I said, we will look at some of the comments that have been made by these parents and at what the women are saying in particular. One woman said:If the after school program is cancelled a lot of working mothers will have to give up work.They understand the reality that they are confronting. Another woman stated:I feel that the changesare having a very negative impact on women's ability to participate in Australian life, which ends up costing the community much more than the child care subsidy!Another parent says:. . . I am very alarmed at the present Govt intentions towards working mothers with the funding arrangements for 1998 being onerous and punitive.These are the views of Australian parents, particularly Australian women, about the changes proposed for out of school hours care. This is the view of a sole parent:If OOSH Programs were not available I would be unable to work as I would have to provide the care necessary for my 7 year old child, andas Social Security prefer us to work even part-time I am unsure how I would cope.Another single parent stated:I would be unable to work part-time in the City & would have to rely on my Sole-parent pension.Surely it is not the intention of this government to send sole parents home to rely on their sole parent pensions, rather than their making the effort, as so many of them do, to hold down part-time jobs? The only way that they can hold down these part-time jobs is if there is decent and affordable out of school hours care.There are also significant problems emerging for the services themselves, and this came through too in the responses from parents. As I said, the parents know that it is the parents themselves who are running these services. There are part-time people employed to care for the children for the hours before and after school, but those who do the admin istrative work, those who actually manage the services, are in fact parents. As one parent said:Am very concerned at implications of the loss of operational subsidy for small programs . . . Parent committees are expected to become marketing experts & run the program as a `business' rather than be concerned about the quality of facilities for their children. If we can't make the grade, i.e. run it as an efficient `business' we should consider "outsourcing" . . .That is, outsourcing the children to a different place. Of course, what it means for the parents is, as she said, that they will:. . . lose control over staffing and activities provided for our children!They are the realities. This is what will happen with this government's changes. These are comments by a parent about another school:As someone actively involved in the running of our school program, I have had some first hand experience of what the changes to funding for OOSH, from operational subsidies to childcare assistance, might mean to our program. The prospect, is quite, frankly, an administrative nightmare.That is what parents think about the changes that this government is imposing; it is imposing an administrative nightmare on Australian parents.What do the changes mean for the children? We have talked about the particular impact on women, the impact on sole parents and the impact on the services themselves. What about the children? This is what the parents think will happen to the children. A parent stated:. . . child would have to walk home to an empty house—something I would not be happy about.That is what will happen if parents cannot afford out of school hours care. Another parent stated:I feel very strongly that to remove funding to these services is to endanger children as they will be `home alone' or on school premises unsupervised. We have demonstrated a need for this service and John Howard's miserable agendato return women to domestic roles by forcing them out of the workforce through inadequate childcare arrangements . . .That will be the result. Another parent said:I think this would just increase the likelihood of children going home to an empty house.These are responses that have come from so many parents. So many parents around the country are saying to us that these things will be the result of this government's changes to out of school hours care.The next point is about job demands. As another parent said:Try to change my working hours to fit into school hours—almost impossible really!Another said:I would have to change—find other employment to suit school hours.Another said:I would probably not be able to study . . . These are the implications of the changes. So many parents have indicated to us that these problems will result from this government's removal of the operational subsidy from out of school hours care.As I said, this is the reality that so many parents are facing. So many parents know they have to work to keep their family budgets together and, because of the cuts to after school hours care, because of the changes to the funding arrangements, because of the massive changes that this government has implemented to long day care and to child-care assistance more broadly, families in this country are facing an impossible choice: they must give up work, reduce their hours or seek what is going to be a much lesser standard of child care for their children.The final issue I want to talk about today is the extraordinary disruption that this government has created for child-care centres around this country by continuously changing its mind about payment arrangements. That, in fact, is why we are here today. That is why this government is going to be reminded again and again by Labor members, all day today, about the damage that it has caused Australian families, both through the cuts to child care and through its incompetence in payment arrangements.Let us go through the saga that this government has imposed on child-care providers and on Australian families over the last two years. In the 1996 budget, the government an nounced that child-care assistance would be paid, as it says in the budget papers, `from a shopfront agency', which we now know to be Centrelink, and that it would be paid from Centrelink to parents. That was supposed to happen in January this year. So child-care assistance would no longer be paid to child-care providers; it would be paid directly to parents. That is what it said in the budget in 1996. Last year, when we were debating another child-care bill, the government agreed to delay this change until April this year—a bit over a month away. In January this year, though, the government announced that it would not go ahead at all. That is why we are here in this place today.For reasons which I am sure are very plain to child-care providers around the country, the government realised the chaos that was going to be created by implementing this change. So now we have had to come back into the parliament and face the fact that this government said in the budget of 1996, `Child-care assistance will be paid by Centrelink to parents.' Then it said, `No, no, we cannot do it by then, so we will delay it until April.' Then in January we had, `No, no, it is not going to go ahead,' and the minister has had to bring the bill back into the House to actually change the legislation.The impact of all this change—the impact of the government continuously not knowing what they are doing—has of course created enormous confusion and wasted effort in child-care centres around the country, and also in family day care. Any competent government would have gone about things in a completely different way. They would actually have worked the details out with the child-care providers before announcing major administrative changes, but not this government. They did not work it out beforehand. They said, `No, no, we do not need to talk to anybody beforehand, we will just announce this change, and as the confusion and chaos becomes more apparent we will change our minds.'This Howard government, of course, has a record of incompetence both in child care and in aged care—and when we debate the Aged Care Amendment Bill later in the day we will be bringing to the attention of the Australian public the gross incompetence of this government when it comes to aged care. But, for now, let us keep focusing on what this incompetence has meant for child care. This bill does not in fact fix the chaos in out of school hours care. Out of school hours care services will now be paid child-care assistance, Centrelink will do the income assessments of families, but the out of school hours care services themselves will have to work out what each family has to pay each week, minus their child-care assistance. That is a task that child-care centres—long day care centres—can do. They have the resources to do it. They are used to doing it. They have the administrative structures and the administrative support to do that task. They have been doing it for a long time.But, as I have said already in this debate, out of school hours care services are not like that. They are run on a shoestring by parent committees. These parents, by definition, are parents who will be going out to work all day and in their evening hours will have to work out how many children came to the out of school hours care centre, for how many hours each day and what their child-care assistance entitlements are. The number of children attending these services, of course, varies markedly from day to day. The number of hours the children attend varies markedly from day to day. This government is creating a nightmare for out of school hours care services and for the parents who rely so heavily upon them.As the parents in my electorate have so clearly put it, they need child care because without it they cannot work. Without it they cannot go to work. The alternative they face when it comes to out of school hours care is for their children to go home to empty homes. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would not want that for your child and I certainly would not want it for mine.These are the real pressures that the government are putting on Australian families. They are making all of us face impossible choices—give up work, reduce your hours. These are the real things that are happening. This is what parents are actually doing. Parents are changing their hours, getting their neighbours to look after their children or asking their grandparents to do more of the child care. Even worse, what we are now seeing, which we have not seen for more than 20 years in this country, is a return to backyard care. We have the fear of seeing the return of latchkey children.These are not things that should go past lightly in any debate in this House because it exposes our children, our young people, to such significant risk. It is a priority that any government should have as its most important—that children are supported and cared for in the best environment. This government's budget cuts mean that that is no longer the case. Parents can no longer afford decent child care. They also now face, as a result of this government's incompetence, enormous confusion and chaos in the services on which they rely so heavily. The government will be condemned by parents—I have no doubt whatsoever about that—at the next election. I strongly commend the amendment to the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs D.M. Kelly)—Is the amendment seconded?WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.11:39:001133Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—You wonder at times where our country is going to end up. In one sense the things that have been said by the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin)—whilst they might have noble intention, apart from the misleading statements that are contained in her address—are simply unsustainable. We are living in a country that is growing at around 3½ per cent.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—It should be 4½ per cent.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSON—We have got the Asian currency and equity problem breathing down our necks. We do not know to what extent the growth in our economy will be affected by the Asian and equity currency meltdown. The Bureau of Economic Intelligence in London suggests it might be as high as one per cent. (Quorum formed) As I was saying, you wonder where our country is going to end up in the sense that we are growing at around 3½ per cent per annum and, as the member for Corio (Mr O'Connor) correctly said, we should be growing at around 4½ per cent.Members of the House and members of the public ought to remember that, because of our appalling savings record in Australia and the fact that the previous government left us with a government debt approaching 19 per cent of GDP, every time we went near four per cent growth the Reserve Bank had to increase interest rates to slow growth because people had to borrow money offshore.The member for Jagajaga and those on the other side who continually oppose everything that we do forget how wealth is created—money that is spent on child care and on aged care. We cannot as a nation continue to finance essential social infrastructure—health, education, pensions—on debt and asset sales. You cannot snuggle into bed at night on the one hand denying industrial relations, taxation and regulatory reform and then on the other hand saying, `Yes, but we must provide full, comprehensive and free child care and aged care to every Australian, irrespective of their circumstances.'I have heard the member for Jagajaga oppose government attempts to make it easier for employers to employ Australians and young people in particular. I have heard her try to frustrate attempts to allow small business people to employ more Australians. I have heard her deny that Australia's taxation system is in need of some kind of reform. Unless we simplify the tax system and broaden the base, it will be increasingly difficult to create more wealth, and certainly any responsible government will not be able to finance essential social infrastructure unless it is borrowing more money.I have heard the opposition oppose, of all things, a charter of budget honesty to actually require governments and oppositions to present their economic policies to the community. I have also heard them, in a climate of collapsing age dependency ratios, rail against any kind of user contribution towards residential aged care, of higher education reforms and of reforms to finding jobs for those who are unemployed. They also sought to oppose the attempts by government to see that we had differentiated targets in relation to greenhouse gas emissions. Had we succumbed to the views of the Australian Labor Party, then many Australians in regional working-class areas of this country would not have had jobs, nor would their children.So it is in that climate that we then come to discuss reforms in child care. What was not said by the member for Jagajaga and others on the other side was in many senses the truth, the things that need to be heard. I would like to quote from a press release of 22 February this year from the President of the Australian Confederation of Child Care. This organisation represents over 1,000 child-care centres. It states:We want to completely refute recent comments about Child Care which appear to be politically motivated, which suggest there have been substantial fee increases. This politically motivated campaign only serves to do long term damage to the Child Care Industry as a whole. This campaign is trying to blame the current Federal Government for reductions in attendance at Child Care Centres. Nothing could be further from the truth.The current Federal Minister, Warwick Smith, has in a short space of time, shown more understanding and leadership in Child Care than any previous Minister in recent times. This Government has, for the first time, put in place a planning system for Child Care, it has removed inequitable funding practices such as operational subsidies, it has introduced a hotline for information about Child Care and it has recently announced a retention of the current system of allocation of Child Care assistance to families which will avoid complex and intrusive procedures for families. Without a doubt, children and families are the big winners under The Howard Government's Child Care Policies.The House needs to be reminded that the form of support that is given by government to child care comes in a number of ways. The first is child-care assistance, which was formerly fee relief. This is a means tested payment allowing fees to be reduced for parents to have children cared for in long day care, family day care, occasional care and some preschools. This payment, which had been paid to providers, constitutes over half of the Commonwealth's commitments in this area. The second is the child-care cash rebate, which was introduced in 1994 and was non-means-tested. By 1996-97 it was $120 million a year of Commonwealth expenditure. In the 1996-97 year we saw the maintenance of a 30 per cent benefit for families earning less than $70,000 a year with one child, but those earning above $70,000 now receive a 20 per cent benefit.To again put into context what the member for Jagajaga was saying, prior to the election I had a constituent whose husband is a quite prominent surgeon in a subspecialty ring me and say, `I am thinking about how I am going to vote.' She said, `If you means test in any way the child-care cash rebate, I cannot vote for you.' I thought what an extraordinary situation where you have someone who I know has a household income in excess of half a million dollars a year actually thinking about changing a vote on the basis of whether or not they will receive a non-means-tested child-care cash rebate. You have to ask yourselves, `Have we lost the plot or haven't we?' The whole point is any government needs to ensure that those who are most in need are the people who receive most of the benefits that government provides. What we have done as a nation over the last 20 years is taxed low income and low middle income families to death in order to return subsidies to them in all kinds of ways.What was not said, for example, about the out of hours school care is that, whilst the government is redirecting operational subsidies from the providers of those services, it is actually putting those subsidies directly into the hands of parents and families who are the consumers of those services. But, more importantly, the government is making sure that most of that money goes to low income and low middle income families. I forget the figure, but I think it goes to families earning up to $67,000 a year.I am going to have some of my constituents in a relatively affluent part of Australia criticise me for that. They will ask me to come down here and rail against this—perhaps the lady with a household family income of half a million dollars a year who rang me before the election will. I have to say to my constituents in relation to this issue, as I have said in relation to the closure of a Medicare office in my electorate, `Just remember that the national interest cannot be easily divorced from the interests of my electorate.'I am privileged to represent the electorate of Bradfield, but I also have a responsibility to the nation, which is something that members of the Labor opposition—the member for Jagajaga in particular—forget. Because people like me are prepared to support sensible reforms in child care and aged care—to name just two areas—we can actually ensure that more resources go to families who are battling in electorates that are represented by members who in some cases actually come from the Labor side of politics. That ought to be remembered.The next thing is that we provide capital grants. We also provide operational subsidies. In excess of $150 million a year was paid out in operational subsidies in 1996-97 to community based long day care. Of course these ceased in July 1998 with the exception of occasional care, family day care, multifunctional and multifunctional Aboriginal children services.Despite subsidising community based long day care, I think it was only something like $4 a week cheaper than privately provided care. In fact, a higher portion of concessional families have been using private care. Again, the member for Jagajaga said something ridiculous like, `The government has a responsibility to provide an operational subsidy to people who are providing complex services.' Does that mean that in some way the government should be providing direct operational subsidies to people providing private facilities—people who have to meet all of the costs that any business person ought to meet? That is simply not a sustainable argument. The government has provided substantial resources to long day care centres to help them adjust to working in a privately operated environment. It ought to be remembered in that context that it was the beneficence of the McMahon Liberal government that in the first place actually established community based care to support low income families and single parent families. The criticisms of our side of politics in this regard are a little misguided, to say the least.There are a number of other points I particularly wanted to make about child care, but I have a couple that are perhaps of a more ethereal nature. There is one thing the member for Jagajaga said that I think is true, and that is the extent to which we nurture the idealism of our children and protect their vulnerable transition to adulthood are critical measures of a caring society. She did not put it in those terms, but I think that is what she meant. It might be said that a society that fails to cherish its children will fail. As I have pointed out, over the last decade we have seen a veritable explosion in the demand for and the use of formal child care. The child-care sector—I prefer not to describe it as an industry—has become for 600,000 Australian children a critical part of their nurturing and development. The Commonwealth government is this year going to provide in excess of $1.2 billion in recognition and support of that fact.In thinking about our future, child care is going to be critical and any emerging sense of national identity is going to depend on our capacity to rebuild a sense of community. Fundamental to the preservation of any sense of belonging and meaningful purpose is the resource of our personal relationships—the recognition that, in a world of fundamentalist intolerance and vast ignorance of the impact of our actions on others, what we need most is one another. For 600,000 Australian children who spend much of their time in child care, whatever the views of those who think a family ought to be two parents, two kids and a golden retriever and one parent who stays at home to look after them, the fact is that child care has become a critical part of the development of children.We need to ensure that child-care providers—public, private, family day care, whatever you like—are seen to be a part of that mesh that is instilling values and nurturing in children. No matter how noble it may be to promote the ideal virtue of children being at home with one parent, that unfortunately is not the reality. Some may see it as evidence of a society that is failing.When I visited a family day care centre in my electorate, one lady said to me, `We are very worried about these children because we should have a computer here and they should be able to play on the Internet when they are here.' I thought, `That's interesting, they are starting young.' I said to her, `Look, that's important, but what you are doing here is something far more important. You are connecting these children to one another. Just remember that you are blessed with a great responsibility and an opportunity to mould them and help them become the kind of children that perhaps care about one another more so than they do about communicating with a computer.' I realise that I have probably deviated from things a bit, but the member for Jagajaga did make me a bit hostile.11:57:001136Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to support the second reading amendment to the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 moved by the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin). I think it is appropriate that I read that amendment so that the House is aware of what we are debating. The amendment states:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) its cuts to child care ($820 million over two budgets, leading to increased fees and reduced Childcare Assistance, lower quality care, and closure of services);(2) the chaos it has brought on the industry (particularly outside school hours care) by its mismanagement of the payments arrangements, despite many warnings from the industry;(3) in particular, the uncertainty it has caused the industry, first by changing its mind on the payment arrangements, and then by bringing forward an interim measure, so that the only certainty is that the system will change again within 30 months".The second reading speech on this legislation by the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) reflects some public concern about the unfavourable impact that this government's child-care policy is having on young families. I believe the minister's opening remarks were:Following the passage of the Child Care Payments Act 1997 last year, the government received numerous representations about the likely administrative impact on parents and on services which would flow from its full implementation in April 1998. I bet they did. I have certainly received many deputations and phone calls—and I am sure all members in this House have—from distraught parents telling me what hardships this legislation would cause to low income working families. This is no surprise when you realise that this government has cut $820 million from child care. These cuts are having a major impact on working families, particularly women. Women are being forced to reduce their hours of work or stop work altogether because they can no longer afford child care. In many cases, family members are being used as babysitters. This may be all right if the family member lives nearby, but in many cases it involves the parents travelling considerable distances to deliver their child to the family member's home. This creates additional stress on all concerned and adds to the time the parent is away from their home.What is happening is that centres are closing and fees are increasing. To give some examples—these are real examples of some of the problems that have been brought to my attention by people in my electorate—I had a visit from a single unemployed mother who was doing a course at a TAFE college to improve her employment skills. Her child-care bill has increased by over $36 since May. To clarify this figure, which comes in two parts: firstly, as a result of changes to the child-care assistance, the child-care fee for this parent went up from $28 per week to $43 per week, an increase of $15 per week; secondly, as a result of the removal of the operational subsidy, which took effect from 1 July, her fee per week for one child went up from $43 per week to $64 per week. This is an increase over that period of $36.40, which is quite outrageous. It is impossible for low income people, in the circumstances that we are describing, to keep their children in child care. This particular lady, unfortunately, was on a pension, so quite clearly the increase in costs would force her out of child care and may well have forced her out of doing her TAFE course.In other cases, centres are operating with reduced standards and facilities. I had an approach from one community based child- care centre in my electorate seeking funding for the installation of some form of airconditioning to help overcome the severe heat problems we are experiencing this summer. The centre is unable to purchase this equipment out of its existing funds and it cannot increase fees. This request has been passed on to the department for its consideration. What this government does not understand is that many working class families rely on two incomes to exist and pay off their mortgages. The changes to child care have been so complex that many families are missing out on the benefits that they are entitled to. They have been introduced without adequate consultation with parents and operators.I will give a few examples of the changes that parents and the child-care industry have had to contend with. Firstly, the government has removed operational subsidies from community based long day care and occasional care centres and put nothing in its place. This is $40 million a year gone from the child-care system. This decision means that fees will rise up to $25 per child per week. Secondly, the government has put a 50-hour a week cap on child-care assistance. Working parents can now get child-care assistance for 50 hours a week for each child, saving the government $30 million a year. It sounds reasonable, but it does not recognise the way child-care centres work in 11- and 12-hour days. For many families, it will restrict the child care they can afford to four days instead of five.Thirdly, the government has abolished the additional income allowance for additional dependent children when assessing eligibility for child-care assistance. Cutting out the additional $30 a week income that families were allowed to include if they had more than one child when applying for child-care assistance is the harshest cut of all. It means a couple of dollars per week per child. It will save the government about $25 million a year at the expense of people who cannot spare it. It costs a family more to raise two or more children than it does to raise one. Fourthly, by freezing child-care assistance and the child-care cash rebate fees ceiling for two years, the real value of child-care assistance will go down.The survey of the National Association of Community Based Child Care Centres, conducted in 1997, found that 73 per cent of families leaving existing care cited increased fees as the reason. This crisis in child care is Australia-wide. Last week, a coalition of child-care providers in Queensland released a survey showing that 3,255 children had been removed from 224 services in that state. Eighteen centres have closed in Western Australia in the past 10 months. In Tasmania, the home state of the Minister for Family Services, a number of services are under threat and could close by June. There is also a serious underutilisation in private and community owned day care centres around Australia due to parents being unable to afford the fees. The more children leaving child-care centres, the greater the cost for the centre, and the fees rise again. This is one way of reducing demand. As parents take their children out of child care because of increased costs, the government says that the demand is not there.I would like to give some examples of the waste that has occurred as a result of the government's policy. I asked this question of the previous Minister for Family Services in September 1996:Has the Government provided the sum of $8.3m to assist child care centres; if so, does the sum include funds to pay out the required legal obligations to staff forced to take redundancy packages?The answer was:Yes. $8.3m will be provided by the Government over 2 years ($6.3m 96/97, $2.0m 97/98) to assist services restructure their business to improve efficiency and minimise the flow-on to parents of the removal of operational subsidy from community based long day care centres.Quite frankly, I believe this is a complete waste of money. That money could have been used to provide additional child-care places instead of providing an industry with additional finance. This view is also supported. I refer to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 26 July by Adele Horin, which was based on comments from the Network of Community Activities which represents before and after school and vacation care providers. It states:The Federal Government's allocation of more than $12 million over two years for consultants to out-of-school care programs and for minor upgrading is a "scandalous" waste of money, the NSW peak body says.Network of Community Activities, which represents 600 providers of before and after school and vacation care, has written to the Minister for Family Services, Ms Moylan, urging her to reconsider the decision on consultants.In the latest budget, the government announced sweeping changes to its funding of services . . . Individual services will lose operational subsidies of between $24,000 and $41,000, but each will be eligible for a $3,000 government grant to pay a consultant.The article also noted:Network's coordinator, Ms Judy Finlayson, said it was scandalous that the money could not be used in a more cost-effective, collaborative way.I think that is a clear example of where money has been misspent. With a bit better organisation and a bit more thought going into it, this money could have been used to directly assist the child-care industry and provide more child-care places.I will just give another example of a child-care centre in my electorate of Greenway. I think this brings home quite clearly the point that the member for Jagajaga was making. As a result of the government's policy, there is quite an amount of disruption in the provision of child care. I asked the previous minister this question on 17 September:Is it a fact that the Lalor Park Child Care Centre in the electoral division of Greenway (a) is located in an area of predominantly Housing Commission homes, (b) provides child care to (i) 93 families on the maximum subsidy of 83.4%, (ii) 26 families at varying levels of assistance and (iii) 10 full fee paying families and (c) will lose $75,000 operational subsidy.The answer to that question was:(a) It is understood that there are a number of Housing Commission homes in the area serviced by Lalor Park Child Care Centre.(b)(i) According to the centre records provided to the Department for the April-June 1996 period, 20 families were on the maximum Childcare Assistance for two children in care and 34 families were on the maximum subsidy for one child in care. (ii) 41 families were receiving partial Childcare Assistance.. . . . . . . . .(c) The centre will receive approximately $70,000 in Operational Subsidy in 1996-97. No Operational Subsidies will be paid from 1 July 1997.The end of this story is that this child-care centre has now closed and the people who were using that service obviously had to go elsewhere. It closed at Christmas last year, but I am pleased to say that, as a result of the initiative of the Blacktown Council, which tendered to reopen this centre, it will now reopen. So that is some good news, and it was no doubt due to the efforts of the Blacktown Council. So I congratulate the Blacktown Council on what they have done to reopen this centre.The point I am trying to make is the disruption that this government's policy has caused to these people, to these parents. What have they been able to do for the last two or three months? They have had nowhere to put their children and, more than likely, they may have had to give up their own employment. So this matter is quite serious and we do need some continuity in the government's policy. I will just make the point again of congratulating the Blacktown Council. They operate 20 child-care centres in their local government area and there are some 1,500 children in these centres. I congratulate the council.We have been asked to restrict our speaking time and I assume there will be speakers to follow me. If not, I am quite happy to continue at this stage. I did want to draw attention to the real need in my electorate for child-care assistance. I have on previous occasions, and I will do it again, referred to the Quakers Hill Family Services, which operates from a complex providing family support, family counselling, multicultural programs and vocational care. This project is jointly sponsored by the Quakers Hill Uniting Church and Wesley Mission's Dalmar Child and Family Care.Of the families currently utilising the premises, many are registered child-at-risk families and over 70 per cent are dealing with current or recent domestic violence issues. The area also has a high level of non-English speaking families—25 per cent—many of whom are newly arrived migrants with minimal English skills. In seeking to provide a one-stop shop for these high need or vulnerable families, it is essential that this centre is granted child-care assistance in order to service these very needy families who have very limited finance and social resources.Although the minister has left the chamber, I have written to him about this child-care centre and I would be very happy to get some assistance from the government on this. It is right in the centre of my electorate in the Quakers Hill area, where there is a lot of new residential development and a lot of young families. With the problems that arise from that, I would appreciate some assistance.As I have indicated, we did agree to restrict our time. The government does stand condemned for all the cuts to child care. I am sure that, as other speakers on this side put their arguments, it will become clear towards the end of this debate that there is a lot of support for the amendment that has been moved by the member for Jagajaga.12:14:001139Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker Kelly, and how nice it is to see you in the chair today. In listening to the debate on the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , particularly the comments made from the other side, it has been interesting to note that we seem to get sidetracked so easily when talking about something like child care. The debate on child care in this place has largely been ideological and, inevitably, political philosophies have overridden the essential issues that we are talking about.In the context of child care, we hear a lot about what is best for parents, and parents of course deserve consideration on this issue. We also hear a lot about what is best for child-care centres, and it seems to me that this bill is largely focused on what is best for child-care centres. In other words, the tail is well and truly wagging the dog. The Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) is at the table, and I am delighted to see him here so early in the morning—SD4CADMANMr Cadman—It's nearly lunchtime.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—It is, you are right. I want to let the minister know that I accept that because of the concerns in the industry there was a need for—(Quorum formed) The member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), who called the quorum, must have had a bad night last night, or else he does not like children. I did not appreciate the interruption. As I was about to say, the key feature of the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 is to defer some of the arrangements that parliament agreed to in the original bill that was debated some time ago—the Child Care Payments Bill 1997.The opposition supported that bill at the time. The opposition has now realised that a few political points can be made at the expense of children and families and so, although it is not seeking ultimately to oppose the bill—and the amendment cutely says that the opposition is not actually opposing the bill—it is moving an amendment which seeks to criticise the government for cutting funding, as the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) said.Child care is vital. No-one in this place would disagree with that statement. What could be more important than the care we give to young Australians who are the future leaders, business people and parents of this country? As the care that children receive casts a lifelong shadow on them, whenever we have a debate on child care in this place the focus should be on what is best for children, and yet the debate always seems to focus on either what is best for parents or, in this particular case, what is best for child-care centres. The question that we ought to be asking is: what is best for children?I accept that the changed arrangements in respect of the funding of child care were difficult to implement. I had meetings with child-care centre owners in my electorate and they explained some of the practical problems they have with the implementation of those changes. I believe that the government has acted quite properly in those circumstances by deferring the implementation of the changed funding arrangements.QT4FILINGMr Filing—They had to.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I agree that they had to, for some very good reasons. To his credit, the present minister has taken a number of steps which obviously had to be taken, and that is what this bill is all about. I hope that the independent member for Moore (Mr Filing) will support the bill. I know that he is a family man and I am sure that he will support the bill when it is time to vote.GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—He could be a Liberal if he was smart, too.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—Maybe! The industry has developed without regard to anybody giving fundamental consideration to the question of what is best for children. In the area I represent in south-east Queensland, the child-care industry has responded to the opportunity to make a profitable investment. I have no problem with the concept of profit and, indeed, I am a champion of free enterprise and profit, but the child-care industry has been driven largely by the system that was brought in by the previous Labor government. People have understandably responded to that. Why wouldn't they? That is what our system is all about. As a result, there has been haphazard growth of child-care centres, with no proper planning or control over the growth of the industry. What we now have is a product of Labor mismanagement in this area.The Labor Party, in its child-care philosophy, is ultimately driven by the ideology that it is committed to. As a result, child care has simply become, on occasions, I regret to say, a political football in this place. The debate has often been clouded by ideology. The feminist ideology—and I realise when I say this that I am being terribly politically incorrect; fortunately there are none of my female Labor colleagues in the parliament, although I notice the member for Bowman (Mrs West) is here, but she will be kind to me—of making child care widely and freely available was all about freeing women from the shackles of motherhood. It is all about, in their estimation, we hear so often, helping women.WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—That's absolutely outrageous. Get out of the dark ages!FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—But what about the many women in our community who do not want that sort of help? What about affirmative action in favour of mothers of young children to give them freedom of choice in the sort of child-care arrangements that they want to make? If we are to spend, as we do, over $1 billion a year caring for very young children, why not pay mothers to do it? I can never understand why that question has never seriously exercised the minds of people on the other side of the parliament. The fact is that a mother can be paid to look after somebody else's children but not paid to look after her own children. Isn't there something quaintly irresponsible about allowing that situation to continue?My bottom line in all of this debate is that ultimately we should be facilitating freedom of choice. In other words, in this particular area the government should adopt a neutral position. I believe the Howard government has moved towards that neutral position, which is ultimately about giving parents freedom of choice as to what sort of child care they want to have—not socially engineering the whole system, not skewing the whole system against that freedom of choice, as we put up with for years, but actually facilitating that freedom of choice. The Labor Party—driven as it is, as I said earlier, by that ideological bent—is in favour of freedom of choice, but not freedom of choice if it is contrary to their ideology.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Exactly the same as you lot.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—I refute that. I take the interjection from the member for Kalgoorlie—I do not think it is fair. We inherited a system which we are fixing and I believe we are genuinely committed to giving parents freedom of choice. It is not easy to wind back all of what has happened and arrive at that point, but I believe we have taken some obvious and very worthwhile steps towards doing that. So I refute the suggestion that we are acting the same way as the Labor Party did. In fact, we are trying to fix up the mess that the Labor Party made.CF4CAMPBELLMr Campbell—Look at superannuation.FT4Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORD—Having said that, and taking the interjection from the opposition spokesman, the member for Corio, (Mr O'Connor), about some of the remarks I made—and I am used to hearing it from them whenever I say anything that is faintly pro-family or pro-children—I am accused of being anti-women. That is what we have to put up with from the other side. If you are in favour of families in this place or you are in favour of getting kids the best deal, you are anti-women. There is no middle ground. You are either totally in the feminist bandwagon or you are utterly opposed to them.I believe in addressing the needs of mothers in this debate. My wife—and I will pay her credit anywhere, any time—has been a very good mother to our three children. For 12 years she stayed out of the work force and gave absolute priority to our children's needs, and she largely continues to do that. I applaud her. I put her on a pedestal. I think she has done more for our society in those 12 years than I have done in eight years in this place. She has done three times as much for our society in putting that time into our kids. Okay, people say, `You can afford to do it.' We can, and we have made that choice, but all the time the Labor Party attempted to take that choice away from us. They made it more and more difficult. If they were still running the show, they would continue to make it more and more difficult for families to make that choice.So I say to the member for Jagajaga and her colleagues, `Get fair dinkum.' We talk about freedom of choice. Let us see the government take a relatively neutral position in this debate and give parents real freedom of choice. Then I think we would see some real solutions to the problems that we are experiencing in our society today. I believe in catering for the needs of mothers. Let us work for family-friendly workplaces. I accept the criticism that has been levelled in the past. (Quorum formed)Madam Deputy Speaker, I am about to finish. I was making the point that I believe that consideration needs to be given to a mother's needs. I have made the point that children's needs are paramount, but let us look at the needs of mothers. Family-friendly workplaces are a great challenge. We have to encourage them. We have to realise the economic reality of life today is such that in many cases both the mother and the father have to go out to work. They do not do it by choice; it is because they have to, and, therefore, family-friendly workplaces I think are a priority for governments to look at.The member for Kalgoorlie asked me about superannuation. This government has taken a step in the right direction. The government recognises that women, when they become mothers and stay out of the work force, are disadvantaged in the superannuation area, so they have taken steps to make superannuation available to mothers in that situation.We also need to be aware of the social needs of mothers who make the choice to stay out of the work force and care for their children. Of course, these days many informal arrangements are in place to address those social needs. What about the idea of child-care centres opening their doors so home caring parents can access the facilities? There are all sorts of initiatives we have yet to grasp about how we can do what, in fairness, the opposition wants—that is, take account of the needs of women and mothers, but do so in an environment where we give priority in this debate to what is best for children.And what is best for children? When you read the literature, I do not think there is any doubt that parent care is best for children. We have gone through years of trendy debate that somehow our society is moving away from parent care to state care or group care or whatever you want to call it, and I think we are now reaping the fruits of those years. Increasingly, I think it will be demonstrated—and lots of the research coming through shows this—that parent care is what young kids need and what ultimately is best for them. We are starting to see the downside of a society that has moved away from that, so let us restore the concept of mothering, let us put that back on the agenda as something that is desirable and worthwhile, and as something that is to be applauded.Mothers want to care for their children, Madam Deputy Speaker—you know that. When they are asked, mothers say they want to be able to have as much time as possible with their children. I do not think that is surprising, and I think ultimately government policy ought to be facilitating that. The bottom line is to facilitate real choice for parents so that the best arrangements are put in place for the care of their young children.12:34:001142Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—Madam Deputy Speaker, I was interested to hear the address of the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford), particularly with the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) in the chamber because I am sure he agrees with every word. I can see he is almost speechless now. I suppose one of the advantages of being over here as an Independent is that you can actually represent the interests of your constituency, unfettered by party lines on particular issues.HE4ANDREWMr Andrew—Oh, what a load of rubbish!QT4Filing, Paul, MPMr FILING—Obviously, the member for McPherson is, because he is not happy supporting your legislation when it all boils down. He has been swamped by what he considers to be the trendies in his own party room. That is why I asked the member for Bradfield—RW5NELSONDr Nelson—That is what he said.QT4Filing, Paul, MPMr FILING—That is what he said. I have no differences with the member for Bradfield because I think that may well be why he is on the back bench: he is a rebel without a cause. The member for McPherson often expresses views that are away from the majority view of the coalition parties. I am sure at times even you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your capacity as a member of the National Party, would sympathise with the positions he takes. Often he takes views expressed by people who are considered to be the silent majority but, in the case of the electorate of the member for McPherson—given the demographic make-up of his electorate—they probably do represent a large proportion of the people who elected him to this place, so he should be representing the views of his constituents. That is his purpose, and possibly one day he may have the opportunity to represent them as an Independent. Who knows.HE4ANDREWMr Andrew—Fat lot of influence he would have then.QT4Filing, Paul, MPMr FILING—I think we have a lot more influence than some of the coalition back bench members, as the member well knows, being the party whip.The Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , according to the explanatory memorandum, follows the passage of the Child Care Payments Act 1997. The government received numerous representations about the likely administrative impact on parents and services which would flow from its full implementation in April 1998. As a result, the government decided to defer the implementation of the act until a child-care card or similar technology is available. This technology will allow the introduction of a system which is more efficient for all parties. So this bill seeks to implement this decision by deferring the implementation of the Child Care Payments Act 1997.This bill also amends the Child Care Act 1972 and the Child Care Rebate Act 1993 to allow the implementation of the other decisions taken in the 1997 budget and reflected in the Child Care Payments Act 1997. These include a limit on child-care assistance of 20 hours a week for non-work related care; the introduction of a planning system for long day care places; a limit on the number of new places approved in 1998 and 1999; and the introduction of immunisation as a criterion for eligibility for child-care assistance and child-care rebate. The bill also facilitates the transfer of the payment of the current child-care assistance program to Centrelink in the interim period pending the commencement of the payments under the Child Care Payments Act 1997.This all sounds well and good, but one also has to recollect that this reform of the child-care system comes from the same organisation which gave us the fiasco over the aged care changes. I hear a member opposite saying there is nothing wrong with those. The actual intent of the changes may be well founded, but the problem is in the implementation, in the practical application of the changes. Hugh Mackay's work Generations—which is an excellent book; I urge all members to read it—points out that one of the fundamental problems or underlying themes in our community in the 1990s is the basic insecurity of many people in our community.The two key points in a person's or a family's lifetime where insecurity is at its most serious point is at the point when people require aged care, either for themselves or for their relatives or loved ones, or at the point when families are raising young children—or, for that matter, children of any age who are in their care. These are the two points of most stress in a family's lifetime experience. And here we are with a process that is contributing towards and exacerbating the feeling of insecurity in our community.I said at the beginning of my remarks that the intent of the changes may be well based. It is clear that changes are required in the operation of child care within our community, as part of changes to the former arrangements, in community based and in private child-care arrangements. It is also clear that when these changes are mooted and then attempted to be implemented, they contribute to the biggest single problem in our community today; that is, that basic insecurity which is gnawing away at the foundations of what we should have and what the government was endeavouring to present as its model—a community that feels safe, secure and able to reap the benefits of the development of our great country.Unfortunately we find, even two years after the election of a coalition government, even after some changes in the economic status that are obviously positive and contribute to people feeling perhaps better off in some sectors of the community, that there is still a very deep, underlying concern about the sort of changes that are going on in our community, which these changes go towards exacerbating.These changes are based, like the aged care changes, on a desire by government to reduce its financial liability in an area of important social service. There are no two ways about this: these are financial changes. They are designed to reduce the pressure on the government's outlays and, of course, to try to reduce the pressure on taxation and all the other elements that go towards accumulating capital in order to pay for the government's services. It is also notionally predicated on a concept of user pays, in the belief—and I am a supporter of capitalism and of private enterprise—that the private sector is the best source of service provision. But, of course, there will always be areas where this golden rule of private enterprise, capitalism, does not work in practice or perhaps does not work as effectively in practice as the theorists would like.It is also a means by which government can disengage itself from an area of government outlays which is growing steadily as our population grows—another common factor with the changes to aged care provisions. It, too, has had to be modified as a result of public outcry at the forms of changes, which have not met the expectations not only of the community but of the government itself.There can be no doubt that there has been a need for reform in child care and that some of the government's reforms are positive, but as a package I have some very serious doubts about the Howard government's approach to child care. It is no wonder that we find an outcry from providers and users and the fact that the implementation of elements of the Howard government's philosophy has had to wait until technology catches up. One might think, from the explanation associated with this bill, that this government is at the cutting edge of marrying its policies to technological advancement and is only being held back because it has moved slightly in advance of what technology can support.What happened in reality, though, was that the government came up with a plan to implement its child-care policy which could not actually work. In effect, its implementation would have caused such administrative problems that the industry would have been significantly and adversely affected. This amendment is an acceptance of this fundamental fact. The government has argued that case in supporting its own amendment.It is surely evident by now to the people of Australia that, for all its ideas on reform, economic management and fiscal responsibility, this is a government that has had problems with following its policies through to actual implementation in the real world or in selling its ideas effectively to an increasingly wary Australian public. This is another problem indicated by Hugh Mackay in his work—in the implementation of public policy, a government of any complexion now has to overcome what is, in essence, a very deep-seated cynicism in the community about the intent of the government and what its real interests are in implementing government policy.People do not believe the promises of politicians any longer. They do not believe governments when they promise to make changes. They now talk about core promises and, presumably, expendable promises, as though these are an actual reality of election campaigns and the implementation of government policy following an election. So it is hardly surprising that people are deeply cynical about how governments work and how public policy can be implemented.The Howard government is asking us to trust its reform agenda. It wants us to agree to trust its reforms in child care. Yet, based on its reputation for reform in Austudy, small business, aged care, dental care, pharmaceutical benefits, research and development and the initial stages of privatisation of the CES, there is a very good reason for people to be suspicious and to have their doubts. Of course, it is the role of members of this place to ensure that the concerns of the community are reflected in debate on these types of legislative reform pieces.Working from basic principles, one of the fundamental roles of government is to create and maintain a suitable environment in which the people of this country can live happy, prosperous lives and strive to achieve reasonable ambitions. That speaks for itself. This includes the provision of a range of services that stimulate the economy or support people who are in genuine need. It also means encouraging the fair and equitable participation of all of our citizens in Australia's daily life.A child-care subsidy can be viewed as a direct parallel to business grants, research and development or tax breaks to stimulate various sectors of our economy. I do not think the government can reduce the costs of business and industry in Australia without providing assistance, in some cases, to the people working in it. The reality is that if the government does not promote affordable child care the result will be a wages impost on employers to make it worth while for a considerable section of the employment market to remain in employment.The overwhelming majority of workers who would be at risk of being forced from the work force are, in this instance, women. Adequate child care in a society like ours where reliance on extended family is reducing is one of the single most important things which empowers women in our community. The member for McPherson talks about choice, and this is a basic element in that choice. It allows women to pursue careers and supplement family income to an extent where they can make a positive contribution to a family's quality of life. To impose a system which reduces a woman's choice takes away power to influence a family's circumstances and, in my view, could well amount to a direct attack on women.Australians want to have access to child care that is safe, affordable and easy to understand. All opinion polls, all surveys, point to that fundamental truism. I believe that elements of this legislation are acting against these objectives. Increased child-care costs will force some parents to seek cheap, unregulated, underskilled care providers as their only option if they are to maintain what they consider to be a reasonable standard of living.For the growing number of single-parent households, disposable income is not a negotiable entity. Equally, many two-income families do not have the luxury of choosing to have one parent stay home and perform the child-care role. It is something that I consider to be worth promoting—something that the government should be promoting as part of its family package, its bias to families. However, we understand that many families do not have that luxury. Economic insecurity and necessity mean that they must seek child care. If increased costs drive them to less safe arrangements for their children, then this government has failed a fundamental duty of care to its citizens. The government has no good record in this regard, I am sorry to say. I believe that the unnecessary complexity of the legislation and administrative procedures it has sought to apply to so much of its reform agenda is a key reason for its inability both to implement it and, more importantly, to convince the Australian public that it is good reform.In many instances, the Howard government has been perceived as a government that is committed to reform for reform's sake. In the first instance, it has cited the $10 billion black hole as the raison d'etre for reform—something that I have spoken about and supported. Obviously, the government sees that as its fundamental principle.Hugh MacKay's excellent work and other reputable national studies like the Klemenger report show that one of the key concerns in Australia today is insecurity. No-one in this place should be surprised at that, or even at the recent causes of public insecurity. I believe that a government devoted to change for change's sake—as this government is apparently perceived now—is contributing to this sense of insecurity. Insecurity is reinforced on a daily basis by comprehensive change which is poorly marketed and in some instances poorly implemented.I think that making the member for Bass (Mr Warwick Smith) the minister in this instance was a good move. I happen to think that Warwick Smith is a very good minister. Given the circumstances in which he took over, when the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) made to his ministry, I think he has tried valiantly to overcome some of these problems. However, he is still charged with implementing a financial cut. There are no other ways of looking at it: it is a financial cut at the bottom of this that is the reason for the changes—apart from other policy changes the government wishes to implement to encourage competition and choice in the child-care industry. They are something I would like to see encouraged as well.The public is increasingly sceptical about the government's reform program. Again, this is something that is caused in some instances by the unnecessary complexity or the poor marketing of changes and particularly the need for those changes. One has to look at child care in the context of what I mentioned about Hugh MacKay's work and this basic insecurity. Particularly in the case of women, in many instances the principal carers in families, it is something that is constantly in the forefront of their minds when they are assessing how they are managing the care of their own families. This is something that is absolutely fundamental to a society like ours which is family based. I would have thought that these changes strike at the very heart of the issues that affect women in our community today.Finally, I make a point about community services generally. I come from Western Australia which, over the last five years, has suffered something like a $760 million shortfall in state grants. Given the recent recommendation for another $27 million cut, we will lose even more. These are cuts that have affected community services that are available for the families in my electorate. They are caused by what is know by economists as vertical fiscal imbalance, which basically means that as the economy grows—as the Treasurer (Mr Costello) keeps telling us it is doing—in Western Australia we are not getting a fair share of the extra money being raised by the Commonwealth as part of its taxation. In fact, we are being cheated by the Commonwealth.Funnily enough, on radio the other day there was a straw poll—one of those populist polls—asking people if they thought Western Australia should secede from the Commonwealth because they would be better off. About 97 per cent rang in and said yes. It is quite clear from my contacts in my electorate that the people know that fundamentally we are being cheated in Western Australia. When I ask people in my electorate about the services or the things that most concern them, particularly in areas where there are families raising children, community service provisions are at the forefront of their minds then.They want public transport. They want community services that we take for granted in some cities. They want the sorts of infrastructure that are part and parcel of a modern community. Yet, when I go back to the state government, for instance, asking when these services will be provided in the newer, developing areas of my electorate, I am told that, because of the vertical fiscal imbalance, because the Howard government is not giving us a fair share of the taxation revenue, we have to wait or we cannot have it. They say, `It is Canberra's fault. Do not blame us.'So then I came here and asked the Prime Minister: `Why is this so?' He said there is no problem, yet his own members, the backbench members from Western Australia, have told the newspapers and elsewhere that they have been telling him and his senior ministers that this is a very serious problem. When the government whip was saying that Independent members are not able to do anything constructive in this place, I asked the question: what were the backbench members doing to influence their own senior cabinet ministers about the state of affairs in Western Australia where, as a result of vertical fiscal imbalance, community services are unavailable or provided at a reduced rate? We find ourselves in a situation—certainly in my state—where, together with the types of changes being proposed and the way they are being implemented, they contribute more and more to insecurity, to a general sense of despondency in our community that I would have thought was anathema to the objectives of the coalition government when it was first elected. This government promised, for instance, that it would reduce red tape to small business by half, and it has failed to do so. (Time expired)12:54:001146Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak on the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 which has come about as a result of the government deferring the implementation of the Child Care Payments Act 1997 until a child-care card or a smart card is available. Such a development will allow more efficient implementation of the child-care reforms.I sympathise with the previous speaker, the member for Moore (Mr Filing). I also am from a state that is a long way from any metropolitan centres, and I can quite appreciate the points that he has made. Those of us in far-flung areas of Australia produce more than our fair share of export dollars. I would simply say that in my electorate we provide six times the export dollars that the average Australian does. I know that there is a similar situation in Western Australia. I might be cheeky enough to suggest that he needs more National Party members over there. Nonetheless, I think he has made a valid point about the distribution of Commonwealth funds.I move back to discussion on the bill. I apologise for digressing, but the point was well made by the previous speaker. The bill before us allows the implementation of other decisions taken in the budget, despite the deferral of some of the proposals. It allows a limit on child-care assistance of 20 hours per week for non-work related care, with some significant exemptions. It allows for the introduction of a planning system for long day care places, a limit on the provision of new places to 7,000 per year for the next two years and, as well as that—a very welcome innovation—the introduction of immunisation as a criteria for eligibility for child-care assistance and child-care rebate. These are sound measures, carefully targeted, because of the spiralling cost of child care.In 1996-97, approximately $1.5 billion was provided by government for child care—$1.1 billion from the federal government and $400 million from the states and territories. The number of federally funded places has grown from 137,100 in 1988 to 396,700 in 1994—an increase of 31.5 per cent per year. By far the biggest item in child care expenditure is the child-care cash rebate, comprising $145.5 million. There is, though, a disparity in the distribution of child-care places in Australia: some areas have too few; others have too many. I think that the introduction of the planning and the cap on new places to 7,000 per year are welcome measures to ensure that places are allocated to those areas of need.Another welcome measure is the 20-hour per week limit on access to child care for non-work related care. The definition of paid work is quite generous. It includes those looking for work, those in paid work, those studying and training, and so on. There is also an exemption for families where one parent is working and the other is disabled and unable to undertake paid work or care for a child.There is a particular situation in regional areas with child-care centres, and this also has been recognised in the changes. In some regional centres where the child-care centre basically is the only Commonwealth facility—if one could put it that way—in town, an enormous number of children who come to the centre come, I guess one could say, from dysfunctional families. I do not like to say that—perhaps `loving but somewhat misguided families' might be a better way of putting it.I specifically refer to a child-care centre in my area, the Rainbow Kids Childcare Centre at Sarina, run by Narelle and Snow Gerhardt and their daughter, Danni. They are the sole providers of child care and they deal with children at risk of neglect or abuse. I know that the owners of this centre put in a great deal of personal time and cost to assist children at that centre. One little boy, for instance, had a severe ear infection which would, in time, have rendered his becoming deaf. Narelle, at her own cost and time, took this young fellow some 900 kilometres to receive specialist treatment. His hearing is now excellent and he has started school happily. Another small child there also came from a very difficult family situation and, at the age of three, could not speak or walk properly. She is making good progress at the centre; she is starting to speak quite well and to walk as well. Recently, one of the staff there slept overnight with a distraught mother and her children. The mother was considering suicide because of difficult circumstances at home.I welcome the recognition of the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) that there are special circumstances for families that have very difficult home lives, and that quite often centres that perhaps are the sole providers in isolated areas undertake roles that are probably far beyond the expectations of a child-care centre.I would now like to speak briefly about the 20-hour a week limit. The previous government was going to set a 15-hour limit on child care that was not work related, so I think the government has been generous in restricting that to a 20-hour a week limit.I am very pleased about the immunisation requirement for eligibility for child-care assistance and the child-care cash rebate. I am sure all of us saw the very distressing advertisements on television of babies with whooping cough. If somebody chooses not to immunise their child, that is their right, but they should not impose a risk on other infants in the same child-care centre who cannot be immunised. Obligation is a two-way street. If parents expect the taxpayer to subsidise and assist them, that is fine, but they should be responsible. If parents do not to immunise their children they expose other very young children under the age of immunisation to serious risk of infectious disease. I think this is a very sound measure which has also been supported by the opposition.I want to speak very briefly about a rather insidious view that is gaining some currency amongst the economic rationalist group. It is best exemplified by a senior executive from one of the major business groups who addressed a committee meeting recently. He made a number of observations. One observation he made—I realise I have taken this out of context; nonetheless, it is symptomatic of a view that is growing—was that for a mother, who is a doctor, to stay home with her children is inefficient. I presume what he meant was that she could employ somebody else to undertake the menial task of mothering, freeing her to go and do an important job with more status—and more pay—and that this would be economically efficient. It probably would be if children were guppies, but they are not. They are intelligent, loving little people, who need mothering and fathering. I would like to put on the record today that the most affordable, high quality child care that infants and young children can have is from their own mothers and fathers—the exception being families with a lot of difficulties, as I have mentioned previously.We all know that a woman's place is everywhere and that a mother's place is where she genuinely chooses it to be. But this was not always the case under 13 years of Labor government. I refer to a statement made by the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) on 29 September 1997 in a debate on a related bill:I am sure it is not the case that the minister—then Judi Moylan—thinks that a woman's place is in the home.We all know, as I said, that a woman's place is everywhere and a mother's place is where she genuinely chooses it to be. I believe that the government is giving genuine choice for mothers and fathers—far greater than the previous government did. The Labor government were such poor economic managers that families paid an extra $4,000 a year in interest on the average mortgage—a great impost on a family—and the average small family business paid an extra $2,500 a year in higher interest payments. They promised l-a-w tax cuts when they got into government and not only did they not deliver; they put up wholesale sales tax—again, an impost on the average family. Families have had to wait until now for the coalition government to deliver $200 a year in tax cuts under the family tax initiative and health insurance rebates of $450 a year. I put it to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that compassion and assistance for families come in many guises. Sound economic management is one way of assisting families in a real and productive way.I would like to refer to some of the points that were made earlier by the member for Jagajaga—firstly, the increased cost of care. I refer to a survey of child-care services undertaken by the Queensland Child Care Coalition. It is shown on a bar graph. The most common reason why parents change the child-care arrangements for their children—42 per cent of parents list this as their reason—is a change to the pattern of work for parents. A private centre in my area of Mackay states:Downsizing at the local mines has been the main factor in children ceasing to use our service, as families have left to work elsewhere.That is a regrettable situation regarding the mines. It points out that the major factor there has not been cost but changes in the workplace for parents. The other most common reason listed in the survey is job losses and insecurity for parents. The third one is `Other reasons', which is not gone into in great detail in the survey but represents some 15 per cent of parents. The fourth reason is increased cost of care. Quite obviously, there are many other factors which are causing parents to change their pattern of child care. I put on the record that I refute the statements that were made by the member for Jagajaga.I would like to speak very briefly about some of the ways in which we can encourage more affordable high quality child care—the mum and dad care. I support the statements by the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford). I am grateful to Dr Peter Cook, a noted child psychiatrist, for some of the ideas that he has expanded on on how we can make our society a more family friendly society. He says that we should recognise parents, especially mothers and very young children, are a unique, valuable and essential group, with special needs for a few short years; that you can re-run a video, but you cannot re-run infancy—how true that is; and that the government could lead the way by encouraging community respect and appreciation of home caring parents of either sex.An article in the Age has worked out that the value of a mother's work at home is $139.4 billion. This is 17 times the value of the sports industry in Australia. Another statistic from an article in the same paper puts the real economic value of Australian breast milk production at $2.2 billion and states that this could be increased to $5.9 billion with some education. If Aussie mums can make an economic contribution like that, it makes Paul Keating's boast of bringing home the bacon look pretty weak. Congratulations to our Aussie mums. I think that affirmative action is needed in favour of mothers of young children to give genuine freedom of choice.At school holiday time I take my son to meetings with me where I can, and I have discovered that other women with young children really warm to this. So many of them say to me, `Oh, can you do that?' Of course you can. I am really pleased that a number of women from the Friends of the Birth Centre in Mackay now bring their young children to meetings. It is great to see that mothers are not concerned about the opinions of others and that they are taking their young children along when they go out into the community and the workplace. I think we should all be tolerant of this. It is not easy for a young mother to take part in a meeting when she has a couple of little toddlers and perhaps a baby with her, but what a difference it makes to the self-esteem of that mother and for the opportunity of her children to mix with her in her work and community activities. So I certainly support the suggestions by Dr Cook.The government has done a great deal to bring affirmative action for young mothers. Mothers need superannuation. It is very pleasing to see that the government on 1 July 1997 brought in a tax rebate of 18 per cent on superannuation contributions made to the account of a non-working or low income spouse. This was a great recognition that while motherhood is a labour of love it need not be a financial hardship.13:10:001149Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I am very pleased to rise to join the debate on the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill before the House. I am conscious of the fact that, by agreement, we have decided to limit our comments to 10 minutes each. It is a very lengthy topic that would need more than 10 minutes to do it justice, but I will just stick to a few specific points that I believe are necessary to raise.I have spent the last couple of days speaking to as many of the managers and coordinators as possible at the child-care centres in my electorate and to as many parents as I have been able to speak to who have got children at long day care and out of school hours centres, family day care centres and community centres—privately owned, that is. In my electorate, some 3,000 children in some 76 centres and hundreds of staff are involved. They are all involved in one endeavour—the only endeavour that is of any importance in this debate—and that is the welfare of the children in the care of the centres.The picture painted by those I have spoken to is cause for grave concern indeed—a very grim picture. That is especially so in my electorate with one of the highest concentrations of people of non-English speaking backgrounds who are suffering grave hardship. I am gravely concerned at the major thrust of the changes and the removal of the operational subsidies. I am gravely concerned at the underlying philosophy and the criticism that is being levelled at the coalition government that this policy is a disincentive to mothers to go to work, if that is their choice. If that is the case, then I can only abhor such a policy.What the coalition government has to understand is that child care to most of the mothers who want to send their children to child care is a necessity—whether it be for financial reasons or for the mother's own needs to be part of the work force—a necessity that has to be acknowledged by any caring government and a necessity that not only has to be acknowledged but has to be assisted wholeheartedly. The coalition government, in my view, is doing the exact opposite.Today's world has moved on from the 1950s and 1960s. Today's mothers are keen to rejoin the work force as soon as possible, if that is their choice. They are keen to participate in every facet of community life, including giving themselves every possible chance to rise through the ranks to positions of importance and decision making in the work force. They have had to pull out, for obvious reasons, from the work force while they are in the process of giving birth. Males and/or single women then replace them in the positions that the mothers have held previously. In other words, the cards are stacked against mothers, and we must do all we can to redress that imbalance. These mothers, to regain their position in the work force, if that is what they want to do, first have to find a suitable place to leave their children for the best possible care while they are at work but also have to be able to afford that care; and, thirdly, they have to have peace of mind in the knowledge that the arrangements for their children are well in hand before they commit themselves to the rigours and the competition that are part and parcel of the paid working environment.I turn now to those in community long day care—the children who are most affected—their parents and the staff at these centres. There are some 400 children in my electorate that are in community long day care, and they and their parents are affected by the cuts in the operational subsidies. Some of the statements that were made to me only yesterday and the day before are that there has been confusion, chaos and substantial fee rises. Many families have been forced to cut back the hours they send their children to the centres. I am told that one in seven families have dropped out. Many centres have had to reduce staff. Many centres have had to replace staff with lower qualified people. There is instability and uncertainty, not only for the parents but for the staff. Many other things were mentioned to me, including one particular centre, which wanted to foster music for these children to appreciate, having to do away with their visiting teacher of music, who was going to teach them what music is all about and an appreciation of music, even at that tender age, which I think is a very important part of the learning process for these young children.Many other families are unable to meet the increased costs and they have resorted to sending their children to alternative types of care which, unfortunately, are likely to be unregulated and not required to meet the health, safety and quality standards of regulated care—in other words, a return to backyard care and to latchkey children. There are about 1,930 children in my electorate—that is, in addition to the 400 in long day care—who are in out of school hours and family day care centres.The managers and the coordinators I have spoken to in the family day care centres, whilst they have retained their subsidy, are worried sick that they will suffer the same fate as those in long day care. I am seeking as many of them as possible to sign a petition to present to the parliament to state how concerned they are and to try to ensure that there is a guarantee that they at least will not have the subsidy removed from them. No doubt, in summing up, the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) will make mention of that. I hope he will do that.I would just like to mention two other things specifically with regard to what the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) said. It is the perennial question to governments: where is the money coming from? He made the points that there is going to be a downturn in the economy because of the financial crisis in Asia and that child-care requirements have grown substantially. Where is the money coming from?When the coalition government came into office on 2 March 1996, it found that there was a budget deficit of $10.5 billion. It is a disgrace that the former government of Australia—the government of Australia representing the people of Australia—placed the people of Australia in that situation. I have acknowledged that, and I have spoken out against it on previous occasions.The point is: is it that necessary and that vital for a government to come in and say, `We are going to turn that $10.5 billion deficit into a surplus of $2 billion'—or $1.7 billion, as I have heard on other occasions—`within 2½ years'? Is it that necessary to place such stress, pain and hardship on the Australian nation to produce a substantial surplus and to cut back the deficit in just 2½ years? In my view, it would have been better to have dealt with the pain and suffering over a long period of time at smaller doses than what is happening now and what has happened in the past two years.Mr Deputy Speaker Mossfield, I noted that when you were speaking on this bill earlier this morning you made mention of visiting child-care centres and of the contacts you have had with parents and children. That is good to see, and it is important that all of us in this parliament get out as much as we can and visit our electorate communities.I would just like to share with the House an experience that I had some months ago now when I was invited by a social worker to go and visit one of my local libraries. I was intrigued why she wanted me to visit a local library after school hours. What I saw there concerned me greatly. A lot of the children at that library after school hours were there not for any other reason other than their mothers and fathers had told them not to go home because there was no-one home. They do not want them out in the street or in the park, so they send them to the local libraries where they can sit, to a point, in airconditioned comfort and in a quiet environment and be safe from the streets. Consequently, the librarians who spoke to me said that they are now being used as child carers. That is a terrible thing to happen in our society.In fact, the librarians are also being asked to intervene when children end up having a bit of a disagreement amongst themselves. In many instances, they have found that some of the children are, unfortunately, trouble makers. Who could blame these children for being in that situation where they are feeling left out from a normal life that one would have where that would be dealt with in a child-care centre that is operated in a way to specifically look after the needs of these young children.I have agreed to limit my comments to 10 minutes, but I wanted to say a lot more about out of school hours care because it is a very large sector of our child-care industry, and it is feeling a lot of pain with the cutbacks. Admittedly, some adjustments have been made with regard to the payments made to the parents of the children at these child-care centres, but the fact is that everyone is feeling the pinch. It is unnecessary. It should have been done over a longer period. The young children and their parents are suffering, and that should not have occurred.13:22:001151West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—In addressing this amendment to the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 , I would just like to say that this government is going a long way to meeting the needs of those in our community who require child-care assistance. Child-care assistance can come in a variety of ways, and there are many choices that parents have in the community at present.One choice is to stay at home, which I believe will always be the first and foremost choice. As the member for Dawson (Mrs De-Anne Kelly) has said, you cannot replay those early years of your children's life. Once passed, you have missed those very precious moments where children first talk, first walk and enjoy the warmth and security of their own home.There are other choices available, such as the day care parent, where economic necessity means the parent has to go out to work. The day care parent reflects an almost parallel existence for the home situation. In the comfort of one's home, a child is nurtured and minded. If that is not available, centre based care is also an option. I might add, neither of these options were available to me when I was having my children many years ago. In fact, over the last 20 years there has been growth in the range of options for parents who utilise child-care assistance.JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—Not so many years.XK6West, Andrea, MPMrs WEST—Not so many years ago. This government is committed to quality child-care assistance. In determining accreditation standards, we want to ensure that the level of child-care assistance is of a national standard—the children are the first priority and the needs of the parents are met. I believe this amendment goes a long way to assisting parents in having those needs met.In the previous 13 years, we saw the wants of the industry blow out to an almost unbelievable level, which, as a consequence, led to a review of the situation. The previous speaker, the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit), said that certain adjustments had to be made. These adjustments have had an impact on the industry. However, I am pleased to say that those that are doing well will continue to survive and, as you will see from my evidence, the ones that are having difficulty with this period of adjustment have poor management skills and poor advice.The issue of child care and the associated social benefit should never be underestimated. This amendment bill will see the deferral of the payment commencement date under the Child Care Payments Act, as announced by the Minister for Family Services (Mr Warwick Smith) in January this year. This deferral is necessary so that payments can continue to be made under current arrangements. The deferral, announced in January, saw the cessation of systems development which would have allowed the implementation of child-care assistance and the child-care rebate under the act rather than the current arrangement, and this will be enforced from 27 April this year.The deferral of these payment arrangements is a result of representations made by the child-care industry wherein they raised many concerns with the government. The Depart ment of Health and Family Services is working towards simplified procedures, and this deferral will see maintenance of the current payment arrangements. In addition, this bill allows the introduction of budget measures that are to commence on 27 April 1998, and I would like to address some of these measures.The government is planning to introduce the 20-hour limit for non-work related child care. I have been active in consulting with providers in Bowman and they have expressed concerns about the politically motivated comments conveniently surfacing as we consider this bill. Furthermore, the providers to whom I speak are indicating some reservation about the 20-hour, two-day limit. We needed to start with a limit of some type and the industry indicated between 14 and 18 hours as the preferred option, if a limit was to be imposed. The average use of time for parents is around 14 hours, and the level of 20 hours, as proposed, is an attempt to focus non-work related child-care assistance on the appropriate users. As always, the government will monitor the effect, and I am sure any necessary adjustments will be made along the way.It is my belief that the industry itself has taken some of the flak over the matter of limits because as the level of assistance decreases so too does the level of enrolments at the child-care facilities. This is particularly noted at the community based and `not for profit' style of centre. It is these centres whose users have a greater reliance on assistance programs. As the assistance declines, so too will the enrolment levels of children who are most likely either disadvantaged or in `at risk' circumstances. However, it is most certainly the case that we have more than adequately addressed the industry expectation by the initial recognition of the 20 hours as against the hours preferred by them, mentioned earlier. The out of school hours option has also improved choices and expanded opportunities which parents can avail themselves of.Some child-care centres have management practices which are also counterproductive. Conversely, some of the community based and not for profit providers are very efficient in the day-to-day operation as well as the management of their individual human resource requirements. Most of the better managed centres are enjoying good enrolments, and they pursue the business in the newly created competitive environment very well. Despite this, it was interesting to note that the restructuring and management training funds of $10 million made available last year by the minister and his department were not fully drawn on. Another interesting sideline to this arrangement involves a decline in enrolments at one of the not for profit operations in my electorate of Bowman.The Queensland Council of Social Service, QCOSS, was contracted to a number of child-care centres throughout Queensland to implement the restructuring and management training process. This involved an outcome of recommendations, and one of the recommendations saw a centre in question increase the fees. The fee increase compounded the problem of competition for this centre, and they have suffered a downturn in enrolments or retention. That was poor advice.It would appear that the fee charged by QCOSS of $3,000 per centre was money poorly spent in light of the recent bleating from the industry about alleged cuts. I have to wonder about QCOSS—its ability to objectively review the performance of these operators and to make subsequent recommendations of an unbiased nature and its agenda on behalf of the people it represents.The private providers have another factor affecting their commercial viability. These small businesses are funded without capital funding or operational support from the government. They also employ qualified people and need to meet strict accreditation criteria similar to the community based ones. This accreditation comes at a cost not only in getting the appropriate staff but also in the physical infrastructure of the centre.The industry employs people within workplace agreements, and minimum hours of work form an integral part of these agreements. These costs need to be recognised as a real cost to industry. As a result of these additional imposts, private operators could suffer a similar downtrend in enrolments. With the ethic of being a for profit small business, it should be noted that the private providers suffer a greater cost to their businesses under these situations than those endured by the non-private sector.Another issue addressed by this amendment is the matter of age appropriate immunisation. It is significant that we in Queensland have had significant success in this area. On Monday, the Queensland coalition government announced through its health minister, Mike Horan, the nation's highest immunisation rate of children at 12 months—a resounding 81 per cent. Not wishing to stop at this level, the Queensland government has targeted 95 per cent by the year 2000.In releasing this information, Mr Horan identified this innovation by the coalition government as a key factor in seeing improved immunisation rates across Australia. The Labor Party opposition in Queensland stated that `Labor had pushed the early 1990s to lift rates'. This is 1998, and statements such as this are indicative of the lack of follow-through demonstrated by Labor across all issues once they have achieved a vote.The Howard government has allocated $4.9 billion to child care over four years. We have established a program capable of creating an extra 83,000 places in child care over a four-year period. Our program has better planning, and it will ensure the growth of child-care services in places of greatest need. This government is committed to quality. We support quality assurance in long day care services and the development of systems for family day care and outside school hours care.It would be remiss of me if I did not take some time to highlight some recent untruths about the child-care industry which have been spread by a group called the Queensland Child Care Coalition. This group have recently released questionable data, the result of questionable research conducted on their behalf. The research findings were highly critical of this government's action in attempting to clean up the mess left to us after 13 years of Labor blundering with this very important area of community welfare.This is the part that should discredit the bleating by QCCC. The QCCC is an organisation with clear lines of operational alliance and alignment with QCOSS, the group who took $3,000 off each of the centres it allegedly represents. The particular research document is released on paper clearly identifying QCCC links with the LHMWU. The spokespersons for the QCCC are Mr Peter Walsh, Director of QCOSS, and Ms Grace Grace, Assistant General Secretary of the ACTU. This is clear evidence which flaws the research data as having a bias. Unfortunately, this welfare lobby, with clearly defined links with the Labor Party, is out in the marketplace spreading the usual untruths and fear amongst the Australian community.I am pleased to see the recent comments from the Australian Confederation of Child Care, representing over 1,000 private child-care centres, stating that `Australian centre based child care is the world's best and still affordable'. The confederation president, Mr Martin Kemp, said:The message we want to make clear to families is that centre based child care is very high quality and very affordable—ring your local centre today.I am on Mr Kemp's team in this matter. I believe the Howard government is committed to the continued quality assured care reflected in this comment. This is the basis for the very sensible and timely changes proposed here, resulting in the delivery of quality child care to Australian families.13:36:001154Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—The member for Bowman (Mrs West) and other government members speaking before her want us to believe that the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 is about improving child care in this country. Let us have a very quick look at what this bill does in the area of child care.It limits child-care assistance, a saving to the government in this current financial year of $33 million. It involves the cessation of indexing the child-care assistance fee ceiling and the child-care cash rebate ceilings, a saving of $31 million to the government this current financial year. It involves the reduction of the child-care cash rebate benefit to 20 per cent for high income families, a saving of $11 million.The changes to assessing eligibility for child-care assistance will save the government $24 million. The changes to new growth strategies for long day care centres will be a $25 million saving. The new payment arrangements for child-care assistance and the child-care cash rebate mean a $20 million saving. Reforms in the area of school aged care will be a $5 million saving, paying child-care assistance in arrears will be a $32 million saving, covering the cost of child-care participants in the work for the dole scheme will be a $100,000 saving and an increase in the number of family day care places will be a saving of $1.7 million.The total savings are $184 million. If you add to that the savings from other areas, such as the abolition of the operational subsidy for community based centres, we are talking about a saving to this government of some $820 million. The member for Bowman and other government members want to stand in this place and tell us that this is about improving accessibility to child care and improving the quality of child care in this country!I was disappointed that I missed the contribution of the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit). I did hear his last few words. He is now an Independent in this place and that gives his contribution on a range of issues new status. He has a new freedom. He can speak freely on these issues, and I understand he has done that today. He has expressed grave concerns about the impact of this bill and the Child Care Payments Bill 1997, which attaches to it, on families in his electorate and families right throughout the country.I did hear the contributions from the member for Bradfield (Dr Nelson) and the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford). I have a great deal of respect for them both. That is why I listened so intently. But I was most disappointed by what I heard. The member for Bradfield said that sometimes he wonders where this nation is heading. I often wonder too. The conclusion I always arrive at is that under this government the nation is heading down the gurgler. There exists few better examples of how wrong this government has it in a range of policy areas than what it is doing in child care. There are some good examples—aged care, the unemployed, employment services and the rest. I could go on all day, but I am committed to keeping my contribution to this bill short in order that this bill can be dealt with before question time.The member for McPherson's main point seemed to be that he was charging the Australian Labor Party for being ideologically driven with respect to these issues. I say: guilty as charged. We believe government is about making for a more equitable society. That is what governments do. That is our ideology—making a better and fairer society. So I say: guilty as charged.Both the member for Bradfield and the member for McPherson demonstrated a total lack of understanding of child care as a policy tool. Child care is not just about giving away a pinch of money to very low income families who really need to have both parents working; it is about much more than that. But the member for Bradfield just wants to apply the economic rationalist tag, the narrow thinking, the very approach the Australian community is so sick and tired of.It is much more than a little handout to help those who really need to have both parents working; it is a social policy tool. It enables women in this country to participate—to participate in industry, to participate in education, to participate in the formulation of policy, to participate in the administration of government policy, and indeed to participate in this place. I know that probably not too many women in this place rely on child care to be here each day—the arrangements are more complex than that—but I bet they did when they were working toward becoming a member of this place. That is why child care is much more than a small payment; it is a social policy tool.Why shouldn't we have women participating more actively in society? They do represent more than 50 per cent of the population. I genuinely believe that Australia will be a better place as a result of a more expanded female participation in those areas I have mentioned. But the member for McPherson has a different view. He wants to go with John Howard back down the road to the white picket fence. The member for McPherson—I hope I understand him correctly; I apologise if I am misrepresenting him—wants women to go back to the family and look after the kids like they always did in the days of the white picket fence. That is the society the member for McPherson has in mind—the one where the ladies stay in the kitchen and the men go out and make all the important decisions. That is his vision for Australia. If I am correct about his vision, I certainly do not share it with him.The government also says that this bill and their approach to child care is about introducing competition into this sector or, as I heard one member on the other side describe it, this industry. It is just an industry to them. You get the micro-economic textbook out and apply the cost curves, et cetera, in the same way you do in other areas of public policy.What happens in rural and regional Australia? There is not any profit motive in rural and regional Australia. The numbers just are not there. In the regions we rely heavily on the community based sector, the non-profit organisations. But what has the government done? It has removed their operational subsidies. How do they survive? In the bush only two or three kids need to leave a particular centre to completely undermine its viability. The result is that it just closes down. Kids are going to be leaving the centres because, as a result of the abolition of the operational subsidy, fees are going up by up to $45 a week. For a family with two kids that is $90 a week out of the pay packet. What happens? The parents have no choice but to withdraw the children. Again, the centre loses the critical mass necessary to make it viable and it closes down. I can just see the private sector running in to fill the void. You must be joking! So this bill is about much more than what the government is doing with fees.I am pleased the shadow minister, the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), has moved an amendment to allow us to have a more broad ranging debate on this because you cannot talk about these new fee arrangements without talking about the other issues such as operational subsidies. I rise in support of the amendment put by the shadow minister. I implore the House to consider what we have said and to consider what people like the member for Lowe, in his new Independent role, has said. I implore the House to support the amendment put by the member for Jagajaga.13:45:001156McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—It is not all that often that I have the opportunity to express such glowing praise for the oratory of the speaker who preceded me, but I do so on this occasion for the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon). He made a number of very good points. He distinguished between the Labor Party's position on these matters and the government's. The Labor Party is about creating a sense of community, a sense of society. The government's policy in this area is directed towards attacking, gutting, indeed decimating the community sector and introducing this element of the hallowed turf of the free market.Hence, as the member for Hunter pointed out, there is no longer talk of a child-care sector or child-care service but a reference constantly to the child-care industry. It is amazing that if you look at what this government has done you will see that the prime focus of its attack has been on the community sector—the sector where parents and interested members of the community come together, often with the support of a local council, to develop child-care facilities, whether they are community based long day care centres or out of hours school care centres.It is this attack on the community that they are so determined about. For some reason they just cannot comprehend that people would be interested in doing something for their community, particularly when the service they are providing is for children in the community. They just cannot comprehend this. Their only comprehension of motivation for human beings is the profit motive and hence the world will be set right because the only motivation, according to them, is to make a quid. Their whole regime is to open up opportunities for people to make a quid, but they are making a quid at the expense of our children.We are no longer talking about a relationship between teacher and child or carer and child; we are now talking about a relationship between a business proprietor and a consumer—the consumer often being less than five years old.The focus of my points today will be in respect of the outside school hours care sector. Before I go to that, I place on the record just what this government has done. In 1996, they had a two-year freeze on child-care assistance payments. In 1997, the following occurred: a cap on child-care assistance to 50 hours a week; lowering the cut-off point for child-care assistance with families of two or more children so that families earning over $91,000 a year, by combined income, are ineligible; abolition of additional income levels for each dependent child; reduction in child-care cash rebate for families earning more than $70,000 a year from 30 per cent to 20 per cent; and the abolition of the operational subsidy to community based day care centres.In 1998, they have abolished the operational subsidy for outside school hours care, resulting in increased fees across the board and restricted access to child-care assistance for non-work related care. In addition, I can recall that block funding to states for vacation care was cut out all together overnight. We will be coming up to vacation care in April and many centres will have been forced to close because of this government.What they have done in respect of the outside school hours care is an indictment of how you should not govern. Since July last year a number of changes have been made to their policy. With each change the government has gone back to the printers with new glossy promotions espousing their propaganda, and most of that has been scrapped or altered fundamentally.What is going to happen on 27 April this year for term 2? Outside hours school care centres are going to lose their operational funding. The centres are being compelled to act as agents for Centrelink to administer child-care payments directly to eligible par ents. Yes, there will be a number of parents on lower income levels who will be entitled to this child-care assistance but the centres themselves—the committees consist of members of the community, usually parents—will have to become administrators of a very complex structure. They will be bogged down in paperwork. They will also have untold correspondence. Indeed, they will have to purchase computers and computer programs to administer all this.It will be a very complex system based on the number of hours a child is in care. If the child is away for reasons of being sick, for instance, they will have to chase up a medical certificate from a parent. It is about as neat and tidy as my kelpie's dinner bowl after she has got stuck into it. It is a horrible mess. What are the resources that are being given to these outside school hours centres? They are being given the equivalent of two months of their operational funding to facilitate their transition. What will happen after that two months? They will be bogged down in this additional paperwork without assistance.It may be necessary for them to look for additional staff because parents who, by the very nature, have children registered in these outside school hours centres have other commitments, usually working commitments. They will not be able to devote their time to it. They will need computer hardware and software. They are not charities, so they will not get any sales tax deductions. They will be paying full freight for this additional equipment. It is going to be a complete and utter mess and an extremely expensive one.The government says that from January 1999 we are going to have a smart card system. Kids are going to start bundying in and bundying out when they arrive and leave. I know that when my wife phones me at the office to say that she is caught up and asks me to pick my kids up I will be asking, `Where is the smartcard? She will be saying, `I have the smartcard.' It is going to be bedlam.GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—We wouldn't waste it on you!JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—You don't think it would be administered so smartly? The situation will eventuate whether it is me, who, I concede, is perhaps not so organised, or whether it is my parents—the grandparents—going down.GJ4SMITHMr Warwick Smith—That would be all right; they wouldn't lose it.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—They would not lose it. That is true. It will be a horrible mess nonetheless. There has been no indication as to what technology will be introduced, who will pay for the technology, or just what will happen.As the member for Bowman (Mrs West) said in her comments earlier, there is no doubt that as assistance declines to these centres the numbers will decline. Experts are predicting that outside school hours centres of less than 20 children will most likely fail because they will not have the numbers to support the infrastructure and equipment that I have been speaking of, which is necessary to cope with the additional administration. That is going to be a real problem.What happens when the centres do close or, indeed, as a result of the additional fees that will have to be charged to compensate for the loss of operational subsidies, parents cannot afford to pay for the care? What are their options? One option is to move their child to a school or an area where there is an outside school hours centre and that in many cases will mean moving the children away from their existing school or from the support of their friends and neighbours.8K6FITZGIBBONMr Fitzgibbon—Or lock them in cars at the casino.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The member for Hunter mentions instances of neglect. Unfortunately, that occurs. The newspapers, not members of the opposition, are giving reports of many children having to go to empty homes after school. The member for Lowe (Mr Zammit) spoke of his trip to the local library. Children went to the library instead of going home. That is preferable to going home to an unattended home, but it should not be happening.We have to remember that in the 1970s, when these outside school hours centres were developed because, as women increasingly entered the work force, children were going home to empty homes, there were often neighbours around. In this day and age when so many parents are both working children will be going home to an isolated home or unit without neighbours or relatives around. It is a real indictment of the government.While, yes, child care is expensive and indeed has been an increasing part of governments' budgets, at least up until this present government, the costs of not providing child care in terms of the problems that happen down the track well and truly justify the investment.The government has another agenda, one fears, in not investing in child care: it is the desire for social engineering to drive mothers in particular out of the work force and back into the homes to look after children. There are also issues as to whether they are massaging the unemployment figures by forcing more and more women out of the work force.It is regrettable that we are now talking about business plans, marketing plans and experts being provided to these centres to advise them on cost cutting, and no-one is talking about the children. They are all talking about what is in the interests of the business in this new industry.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Price driven.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—As the member for Banks says, it is price driven, market driven, but no-one is talking about the welfare of the children. That is fundamentally where we should be focusing our attention.13:57:001158Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—I acknowledge the contribution from the previous speaker, the honourable member for Barton (Mr McClelland). We have had quite a number of speakers on the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 this morning. There will not be time for me to completely sum up. At 2 o'clock I will seek leave to complete my remarks after question time, before this bill goes through the parliament again.There is a second reading amendment from the Labor Party. Keep in mind, however, that the Labor Party did support the child-care legislation when it came through the parlia ment last year, and they are continuing to offer support to the fundamental underpinnings of what we are attempting to do in child care in this country. What we are attempting to do is redress the problems that we inherited and which have been acknowledged in the primary bill debate by the opposition in that there was an unplanned procedure that applied in the child-care industry and that there was the provision for far more places and we were funding to a level that was unsustainable. What the legislation does, with the support of this place and the support of the Senate, is to make sure we put in place a proper structure to deal with planning.One of the misleading elements, hypocritical elements, in the amendment put forward by the opposition relates to reductions in the outlays. Reductions in the outlays are a direct consequence of the planning proposals which the Labor Party themselves approved only last year. I believe it is totally hypocritical to be moving this second reading amendment. We are spending $4.9 billion, nearly $5 billion, on child care over the next four years, providing an additional 83,000 places. We are concerned about quality child care for Australian families and access in an affordable way for families to ensure that they have a range of choices from family day care to after school hours care, and also from the community care sector and the private care sector.Providing families with choice and the opportunity to exercise that choice with the strong support of Australian taxpayers is the design of this legislation. With $1.2 billion this year and an additional 18 per cent over two years, there have been real increases. To hear from the opposition, as we did this morning, about a range of these matters was totally and completely hypocritical. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Ministerial Arrangements11581158Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Defence will be absent from question time today. He will be speaking at the launch of the submarine Dechaineux . The Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government will be absent from question time today. He is in Queensland attending a funeral. The Minister for Transport and Regional Development will answer questions in his absence.Questions Without Notice115911591159Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, did Senator Parer tell you that his 16 shares were worth more than $2 million and that he and his wife totally control the private company holding those shares? Did he tell you that, through his $2 million shareholdings in Queensland Coal Mine Management, he also held beneficial interests in 100 per cent of Advanced Queensland Resources and Mining, 100 per cent of Jellinbah Mining and 70 per cent of Bowen Basin Coal? Did he inform you that the company had increased its net capital value from $15 million to $153 million in the first year he was minister? Prime Minister, if he did tell you this, why didn't you tell him to divest himself of the shares?1159Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I made a statement last night regarding the allegations contained in the questions asked by the member for Hotham. The member for Hotham is involved in muckraking. The member for Hotham, along with the Australian Labor Party, is disinterested. It is very, very interesting that, on the day on which unemployment in Australia is at its lowest level for five or six years, the first question contains a personal attack on somebody, without foundation and without substance. It would appear that there are a number of things that the Labor Party opposes and one of those is successful businessmen.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was a very specific set of questions asked of the Prime Minister. He is way irrelevant to those questions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Relevance is a matter of addressing the whole of the question and the context in which the question has been presented.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I addressed the issue raised by the honourable member for Hotham. He is muckraking—avoiding issues of interest to the Australian community.DT4CREANMr Crean—A point of order!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat. Prime Minister, wait until I call you.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call.DT4CREANMr Crean—Point of order!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have ruled on the point of order. Resume your seat!ZD4Mr HOWARD—On the day that unemployment has fallen to its lowest level, what does this character do? He muckrakes. I say, on behalf of the Australian public, that they are fed up with your muckraking. They are far more interested in real issues.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it appropriate for the Prime Minister to allege that those allegations are without foundation when all of the information is on the public record?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have finished my answer.11591159Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. How is the government's disciplined fiscal and monetary policy helping to create jobs for Australians? Is the Treasurer aware of alternative policies and the effects that they would have on Australia's employment prospects?1159Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Lindsay for her question. Today the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported that there are 8,529,000 Australians in jobs—the highest number of Australians ever in work in Australia—and that employment increased by nearly 15,000 jobs in the month of February. What that means is that the unemployment rate in the month of February of 8.1 per cent is the lowest unemployment rate in Australia since December 1990. It is the lowest unemployment rate for more than seven years. I think all Australians will welcome the fact that unemployment is now at the lowest level in Australia for the last seven years. It is the lowest unemployment rate since Mr Keating called the recession `Australia had to have' and put Australia into recession in 1990.We do not rest on those results. We do not say that having the lowest unemployment in the last seven years means that we can stop. There was a lot of damage done to this country by the Keating Labor recession of 1990. The fact that it has taken seven years to get back to where we were before then means that we as a government have to keep on working to get more Australians into jobs. What does that mean? It means that we need to have a disciplined approach to the budget position. Any political party, and the Labor Party is one of them, which believes that you can enter into unfunded promises and run up deficit and debt is pursuing a policy of higher interest rates and throwing the economy into reverse.People should understand this: Labor's policy to increase the deficit and run up interest rates is a policy to lose jobs in Australia. That is why this government works so hard on getting the budget settings right—because it means that we can keep interest rates low. People should also understand that this government's determination to lock in low inflation is part of our strategy to have low interest rates. It is low interest rates which have been driving economic growth in Australia. To keep those economic growth rates up—as they now are—amongst the highest in the developed world is consistent with continuing the creation of jobs here in this country.As we look back from this vantage point of February 1998, we see that we have finally got back to the best employment position since the Labor Party threw us into recession with 17 per cent interest rates in 1989-90. My message to the parliament and my message to the Australian people is this: we have to continue to keep working in a disciplined way to produce these results, to give job opportunities to young Australians and to create employment prospects in this country.11601160Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that the shares in Queensland Coal Mine Management were not issued 28 years ago but in 1993? Are you aware that they were issued as $1 shares? Are you aware that they were issued at a meeting held in Brisbane and that the share issue was immediately followed by a dividend for Senator Parer's shares, fully franked at over $210,000? Is the Prime Minister aware that at the time Senator Parer was chairman of the company? Prime Minister, how could Senator Parer have failed to declare such a substantial interest?1160Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Nothing new—just muckraking again. Let me say again that apparently it is now, in the eyes of the Labor Party, a crime to have owned some shares in 1993. What possible relevance is there? I simply say to those who sit opposite: you made allegations yesterday. I answered them last night. You are producing nothing new.11601160Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is also to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of comments reported in this morning's press by the international ratings agency Standard and Poors concerning the Asian currency crisis and its likely impact on Australia's credit rating?1160Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I might observe, in thanking the member for Wannon for that question, that one might have thought that question might have come from the opposition; but, no, they are not interested in the number of people in work in Australia. They are not interested in Australia's international financial reputation. They are only interested in tearing down the reputation of decent men—4G4DOWNERMr Downer—Muckrakers; that's all you are.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Muckraking. Well may the Leader of the Opposition look just a little bit uncomfortable, because I think he understands that the Australian people are a bit tired of all of this muckraking and that they really want a little bit of commitment to issues that affect mainstream Australia.I am pleased to say that this morning's press reported that the international ratings agency Standard and Poors did not expect the Asian currency crisis to affect Australia's long-term foreign currency credit rating. That is very good news indeed for the Australian economy. It is very good news for the Australian people because it is further evidence of the fundamental strength of the Australian economy. That is something which all Australians should derive considerable satisfaction from. It is further evidence that the coalition government's responsible economic policies have helped insulate Australia from the turmoil that has gripped much of Asia.A key to Standard and Poors' outlook for Australia is that the government's economic policy direction remains consistent. What that means is no return to the years of deficit and debt. It means no return to the years of $10½ billion deficits. It means the preservation of the economic circumstances that guarantee that Australians have a chance of hanging on to those interest rate cuts—those interest rate cuts worth $100 a week wage rise that would be at risk if the Labor Party were re-elected. They are the issues that the Australian people are concerned about.The message out of Standard and Poors is: do not under any circumstances put the control of the Australian economy back into the hands of the men and women who ran up a deficit of $10½ billion and then misled the Australian people about the true state of the books. Do not under any circumstances vote out of office a government that has given Australia the lowest inflation rate in the Western world. Do not under any circumstances take control of the Australian economy away from the people who have given the Australian economy considerable stability and considerable international respectability.I want to assure the House that this government's fiscal rectitude will be very much on show when the 1998 budget is released in May. The benefits of the Austral ian government's economic policies are everywhere to be seen. We would have been in a much weaker position if the former government had remained in office. Our interest rates would have been higher, our unemployment would have been higher, our inflation would have been higher and our international financial reputation would have been dramatically lower.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham.DT4CREANMr Crean—I ask the Prime Minister to table the document he was reading, which he hid behind his back.ZD4Mr HOWARD—With pleasure. I will tell you what—it goes on much longer. Would you like me to read the rest of it? There is a very good point.DT4CREANMr Crean—Just table it.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, I am sorry, you asked me a question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will sit down. You have asked him a question. The Prime Minister—DT4CREANMr Crean—Just table it.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, you asked me a question.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You have asked him whether he will table it. He said yes, and he wants to add to his answer. The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, let me say it again. Not only will I table it, but I might start from the top and read it right through. Would you like me to do that?DT4CREANMr Crean—But Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham, resume your seat. You have asked the question.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Why not? This morning's press reported—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, a point of order!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Hotham on a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?DT4CREANMr Crean—Haven't you ruled out supplementary questions, Mr Speaker? Isn't he out of order?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That was not a supplementary question.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, come on!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, let me—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable members for Isaacs, Lyons and Prospect. The Prime Minister will—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am a generous bloke. Let me—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Would those on the opposition benches mind remaining silent before I call the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is quite properly—5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—It is very hard with this going on.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It would be a good idea if you did.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Are you going to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Canberra should just remain quiet. The Prime Minister has the call. He was asked by the honourable member for Hotham to table the paper from which he was reading. The Prime Minister is exercising a total right, which is that of any minister responding to a question, to add to his answer. He is adding to his answer. I call the Prime Minister.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to get this straight. Is he adding to the answer that he previously gave?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—So I understand. He is responding to a question from your colleague on the front bench.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—No. I take a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—No, I asked for it to be tabled.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I understand the Prime Minister asked if he could add to his answer. Is that correct, Prime Minister?UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No, no!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, I would love to do it. I was invited to do it. I am doing it.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—No, you weren't.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I was invited to do it. You asked me, and I am answering your question. I insist on the right to do so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister should resume his seat. Does the Leader of the Opposition have a point of order?PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—My point of order is this: it is a perfectly appropriate request to make in this place to ask a person quoting from a document to table it. If the Prime Minister wishes to add to an answer, there are plenty of opportunities after question time. He is on a smart alec high.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the Leader of the Opposition should desist from—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—The point of order is this: the simple fact of the matter is this: when you are asked to table a paper, there is a proper process. The process asks as to its confidentiality and then seeks its tabling. That is what happens in those circumstances, not this play acting that has been going on.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will sit down. Your colleague asked for the document to be tabled. The Prime Minister is entirely within his rights in reading further from the document that has been asked to be tabled, to which he has acceded.ZD4Mr HOWARD—By way of response and by way of supplementation, can I continue. The benefits—this is very interesting; I had not mentioned this earlier—from the government's policies in helping Australia better withstand the economic shock from Asia have also been directly endorsed by the OECD. In its 1998 economic survey of Australia released earlier this year, the OECD stated that recent developments in global financial markets underline the importance of measures taken to raise national saving, in particular fiscal consolidation. If you wash out of that the OECD-speak, they are really saying, `Thank God, the Australian government got rid of Beazley's $10½ billion deficit.' That is what that really means.The very fact that the confidence of domestic and international investors in our economy has been maintained is testament to the government's responsible economic policies—policies which stand in stark contrast with the high debt, high deficit, high interest rate policies of Labor—Simon, thank you very much.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Prime Minister, will you table the document?ZD4Mr HOWARD—Yes, you can have the lot.11631163Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, yesterday you informed this House that neither Senator Parer nor his wife had received dividend income in 1995-96.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—No.DT4Mr CREAN—Yes, you did. Now you are denying that. Is the Prime Minister aware that in August 1995 Senator Parer chaired a meeting of Queensland Coal on the Gold Coast at the Sheraton Mirage hotel. That meeting on the Gold Coast determined that the private company that he and his wife control was to be paid almost $100,000 in dividends. Prime Minister, has Senator Parer misled you? Has he misled the Senate? Haven't you misled this House?1163Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The advice that I was given and the advice that I tendered to the House—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Oh!ZD4Mr HOWARD—`Oh!' you say. For the information of the member for Hotham, in 1995 Senator Parer was not a minister. He was entitled to be the chairman of the company and he was entitled to declare any dividend he wanted to.11631163Andrew, Neil, MPMr ANDREWHE4WakefieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you advise the House of the impact that Christopher Skase's bankruptcy has had on the small businesses with which he was associated and what effect the disclosure of Federal Court affidavits relating to his bankruptcy has had on the likelihood of these small businesses having some of their money returned to them?1163Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Wakefield for his question. The facts of the matter are that, when Skase shot through with the funds, the various authorities were set in pursuit of Mr Skase. Every attempt should be made to secure the return of those funds. Labor were in office. They failed in the Skase chase. Now that they are in opposition they are doing everything they possibly can to jeopardise the proper pursuit of the Skase assets.The facts are quite clear now not just from the interpretation placed on these facts by members of the government but from the very careful analysis of this matter in the Senate. We find that the Senate has censured Senator Bolkus for the release of confidential documents out of the Federal Court. Those listening to the political debate would discount the claims made by the two major sides of politics, but when this matter was debated in the Senate it was not just the government senators who voted to censure Senator Bolkus; it was people like Senator Brian Harradine, the Independent from Tasmania. He looked at the issue and he quoted the claim that Senator Bolkus had revealed certain contents of a confidential Federal Court affidavit. Senator Harradine said:That has been made out. It is clear. It is correct in that that occurred.Then he went on to the fact that the affidavit was part of legal proceedings brought by Max Donnelly, the trustee. Senator Harradine, the Independent, concluded on this issue:Again, that is a fact.8I4MARTINMr Martin—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order under standing order 142. Although the question was couched in the responsibility of the minister for small business, not one word so far in his response has referred to that. Accordingly, I submit to you that the response is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question and the response are entirely in order.WI4Mr REITH—Then Senator Harradine referred to the fact that you could get affidavits only by way of leave of the court. He wanted to know whether there was any authority for Senator Bolkus to have that affidavit and to box it in the gallery to help Mr Skase. He said in respect of that allegation:Again, that is correct.It further says that there had been no authority from Mr Donnelly. So what did Senator Harradine say on that:Again, that is clearly not in dispute.Who suffers as a result of this? Is it Senator Bolkus? No, because he reckons he is doing it for a bit of coverage for himself. He thinks he can get a few cheap political points to be scored against the government of the day and the minister. But who hurts in the end? It is the small business community. It is the bloke who is owed $1,160 because he provided plants and services. It is the bloke who runs a car hire business who loses $462.84. It is the local florist and the local physiotherapist. In fact, there are loads of people in the small business community who had an interest in seeing the full pursuit of Mr Skase.Who betrays that action being taken against Skase? None other than Senator Bolkus. He was censured in the Senate. What does the Leader of the Opposition do? He mounts a muckraking case against an honest minister so as to protect one of his own. Here he is. The great protector: the protector of Mal Colston and now the protector of Nick Bolkus. People talk in this place about conflict of interest. I tell you the true conflict of interest is the conflict of interest between the actions of Senator Bolkus and the failure of the Leader of the Opposition to do something about him.11641164Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, has Senator Parer informed you that since 1993 the dividend stream to his private company from his coal shareholdings totals almost $850,000, including almost $300,000 issued in the Senator's first year as a minister? Prime Minister, have you ascertained how much of this amount has gone to the Parer family through their trust?1164Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I would have thought that the question at issue here is whether there has been a conflict of interest such as to require the minister's removal. Are you saying that the children of a minister of the Crown are not entitled to share in the assets of their parents' earlier activities? Do you want a parliament full—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Members of the opposition will remain silent.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think what this crowd opposite really wants is a parliament—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—You can make as much noise as you like, but nothing is going to get you out of the obligation of getting back to what is really involved here—and it is not muckraking about somebody who was successful in business. That is what you are about. What do you expect the man to do when he becomes a minister? Throw it all away. Of course not. You want a parliament composed entirely of trade union officials and former political staffers. All I can say is: pity help Australia if we end up with that. If the opposition has some decent allegation of conflict of interest, let it make that allegation. If you imagine that I am going to inquire of the details of bona fide family business in relation to my colleagues you have another think coming.11641164Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonLP10—My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of calls for the passage of the government's Native Title Amendment Bill? Why is it important for the bill to be passed quickly? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that debate in the community is being stifled on this issue?DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I hope it is a point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—It is a point of order. This bill has been discharged from this House and under the anticipation rule, which has been ruled on in this House, if a bill has been discharged it cannot be questioned in question time. I would urge you to rule that way.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I believe the question to be in order. I call on the Deputy Prime Minister.1165Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Dickson for his question. I think it is time to update the House since recent debates of the intervention of three people not noted for their support of the coalition government—Father Brennan, Gary Johns and Peter Walsh. What we now have is a comprehensively exposed grubby and politically driven strategy to force Australia into a race based election. Father Frank Brennan SJ is reported in the Australian as stating:I was asked to be silent, I agreed to be silent.Father Brennan confirmed in his most recent utterance that Aboriginal negotiators wanted to bring about a double dissolution which they hoped Labor would win and then scrap the 10-point plan. Father Brennan said, `Pigs might fly.' That is a comment of Father Brennan. He went on to state:First Labor would need to get elected, and then in government—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Standing order 71 states:No Member may allude to any debate or proceedings of the same session unless such allusion be relevant to the matter under discussion.This is a debate that has been determined in this House. It cannot be alluded to. This minister is talking about Labor's position in relation to that debate. He is alluding to our position and he is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The point of order relates to an interpretation of both standing order 71 and standing order 144. The Deputy Prime Minister is not referring specifically to the debate or the proceedings; he is referring to aspects regarding the subject matter of native title which is a far wider matter. I call the Deputy Prime Minister.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Clearly they do not like a healthy dose of Jesuitical realism. What did the Aboriginal negotiators and Labor not want Father Brennan to say? They did not want him to emphasise the fatal flaw in their amendment to the Racial Discrimination Act. They forget very neatly what happened when they were in government and sought to do the same.I now move on to Mr Gary Johns. Mr Gary Johns has introduced new material into this debate this day. Gary Johns has said that Labor's view was:. . . that past valid freehold and leasehold grants extinguished native title . . . it not only assumed the High Court would confirm this view in Wik, it prayed for that outcome.When Labor spokesman Daryl Melham announced recently that he had always believed co-existence would occur on pastoral lease, it served to confirm that no-one else on the Labor side did.Daryl, you are on your own. What we now have from Gary Johns is the absolute reality. He goes on to state:The reality of the RTN is that, in conjunction with an easy test for registration, with the flimsiest of evidence claimants can extract from miners rent in the form of royalties, jobs and training from what would have otherwise been unproductive land.Gary Johns, a former minister of your party, stated:This Robin Hood mentality shows the flaw in Labor's thinking. Why should special rights attached to a title held by one race be used essentially against one industry?To which I would add, why should farmers be made second-class citizens with a second-class set of rights under Labor's approach? On top of that, we have former Senator Peter Walsh, who is a distinguished columnist for the Financial Review —sometimes—making it clear recently:Let us be clear, the superficially innocuous right to negotiate is an invitation to extract rent by extortion.It is very clear that it is not a common law right. What the government is about is getting in place—and the sooner the better—a set of circumstances and a framework which will allow the fair processing of native title and farmers to get on with their lives. What your approach is about, which is threatening to bring on a race based election, is that you have no honesty on this subject, you have no integrity on this subject, and Kim Beazley has absolutely no leadership on the subject of Wik.11661166Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, yesterday you said there was no scope for divestment of Senator Parer's shares in Queensland Coal Mine Management. Are you aware that Senator Parer's C-class shares can be divested simply by seeking the approval of just three ordinary shareholders? Prime Minister, did Senator Parer try to divest himself of these shares or has he misled you and caused you to mislead the House?1166Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have no reason to alter anything I said yesterday, but can I just make the observation that it is now half past two and we have had nothing new, nothing different—CT4COSTELLOMr Costello—No new facts.ZD4Mr HOWARD—No new facts; nothing different. You still have not been able to establish where the conflict of interest is. By references to specific amounts of money, all you are trying to do is to develop some kind of view in the community that it is wrong for somebody to have been successful in business.I am very proud of the fact that I have within my ministry a number of men and women who were remarkably successful in business. They were men and women who were prepared to take risks to invest. They were prepared to generate jobs; they were prepared to employ people. Apparently, what this crew opposite believe is that, when you get into the ministry and if you have that kind of background, you are meant to say to your children, `You don't get any benefit from my hard work. You don't get any benefit from the risks that I have taken. You're not going to share in it. What I am going to do is throw you to the wolves.'I believe that, throughout the whole of this episode, my colleague Senator Parer has behaved with honour and with honesty. I illustrate that point simply to emphasise that, when I was going through some of the the papers, I came across one of the letters that Senator Parer wrote to me. Part of that letter reads as follows:Changes in investments held by the Parer family trust. Changes are: (1) . . . I ask honourable members to listen to this very carefully because it goes very much to motive and it goes very much to the state of mind of Senator Parer long before these events occurred, and is therefore far more reliable evidence about his motives and his desire to comply with guidelines and to do the right thing. This is what he had to say:Disposal of CSR shares. I discovered that CSR had a 20 per cent interest in Nabalco which mines bauxite. No decisions made which affect Nabalco.In shorthand, what that is saying is two things: that because the trust held some shares in CSR, which in turn had an interest in Nabalco, which mined bauxite, he thought it expedient and proper—he thought it the right thing to do—to see that those CSR shares were got rid of. He also went on to say that he had not made any decision which affected Nabalco.They are the actions of a man conscientiously trying to do the right thing; they are also the actions of a man who understands business; they are also the actions of a man who understands the mining industry—in other words, the actions of a man who is a fit and proper member to be a minister of the Commonwealth government.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—I ask the Prime Minister to table the document.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Here it is. You can have it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Perth will hand the document to the clerk.11661166Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Minister, would you advise the House what plans the government has to improve access to services in the many bush towns which Labor neglected for 13 years, particularly for towns such as Proserpine in my electorate of Dawson?1166Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for Dawson for her question. Rural Australians have not had good access to Medicare and that is something we have been remedying over the last 18 months. We have had a Medicare easyclaim facility that is now into its second rollout. The first rollout saw 110 facilities offered around Australia; 104 of the pharmacists took them up. That was completed on 5 October last year.We are now in the second rollout where we are putting another 106 facilities in. The facility at Proserpine in the member's electorate was one of the first to go out. We have already put facilities in places such as Glen Innes—in your own electorate, Mr Speaker—at Maryborough in Bendigo and at Goondiwindi in Maranoa. Today, in the electorate of Riverina, a facility is going in at Cootamundra. Next week we are putting facilities in at Karang and Cobram in the honourable member for Murray's electorate. We have finished planning for the third rollout, and that will happen by 30 June this year when another 140 facilities will be underway. I am pleased to let the honourable member for Ballarat know that two pharmacies in Stawell will be offered facilities—and this might actually get him off my front doorstep for a while.In October 1997, we also trialled a second facility by using a touch screen. We are doing this in four pharmacies: two in Seymour and two in Wonthaggi. This touch screen trial will go over six months. We are also doing a trial in Palmerston in the Northern Territory to have a look at what happens in an outer metropolitan area where you have a larger volume of claims.The Health Insurance Commission has had almost universal support for this. Patients have found the electronic funds transfer facility perfectly good. They appreciate having a facility where nothing existed whatsoever. The sorts of comments and feedback we have had are typical of one that we got from Kilcoy: `The HIC easyclaim is a boon for the town because the facility helps keep money and business in the town.' I am sure this will please the honourable member for Fisher. All up, we will have around 400 facilities implemented six months from now. This will complete an election promise where we committed to extend Medicare facilities to country areas. I thank honourable members for their help in rolling it out.11671167Hanson, Pauline, MPMs HANSONBK6OxleyIND00—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. With Indonesia on the verge of financial and social collapse and Suharto refusing to cooperate with the IMF, many Australians have concerns for the impact on our country.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will ask her question and not give us an explanation of foreign policy. Would you please ask your question?BK6Ms HANSON—In particular, there have been many radio and newspaper reports on the possibility—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will direct her question.BK6Ms HANSON—It is all part of the question, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I would suggest you come to the point of your question. Up until now, it has had nothing to do with the minister.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will direct her question. You have got to direct your question and not provide a long diatribe before we get to the meat in the sandwich, if you would like to put it that way.BK6Ms HANSON—I have no problems with that, as long as I am treated the same as everyone else in this House on questions.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will either ask her question or resume her seat.BK6Ms HANSON—What precautions has the government taken in order to deal with the possibility of this intrusion of unprecedented numbers and its impact on Australia?Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members of the opposition will remain silent. The minister has the call.1167Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—Thank you, Mr Speaker. In relation to the matters raised by the honourable member, let me just shortly state that the government is obviously aware of what is happening in Indonesia. We keep a close watch on matters that relate to their economy and their future and endeavour to assist in a very positive way. I think that has been demonstrated by the way in which the government and the foreign minister have addressed these issues. There is no evidence that there has been any outflow of people from Indonesia. Obviously, while we would be alert to any changes that might occur and plan appropriately, there are no matters which we are aware of at this stage which would give us any concern at all. I am very confident that we will be able to address any situation that arises.11681168Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Minister, would you advise the House how Australia is contributing to the Bougainville peace process? What is the significance of the Technical Meeting currently being held in Canberra attended by representatives of the PNG government, the Bougainville interim government, the Bougainville transitional government and the Bougainville Revolutionary Army?1168Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—First, I thank the honourable member for the Northern Territory for his question and say to him and the House that this government, ever since it came to office, has given a very high priority to doing our best to contribute to an end to the bloody conflict on the island of Bougainville, which is so close to Australia. We at the outset took a very strong stand against the former Chan government's decision to pursue a military solution to the Bougainville conflict and, in the end, the stand that we took was vindicated. Since June last year, the Australian government has been playing a very significant role in helping to take forward the whole of the Bougainville peace process—everything from hosting meetings in places such as Cairns, through to providing transport to a range of different meetings for the officials on the Bougainville as well as the PNG government side.At the moment, out at the Eaglehawk Resort near Canberra, a meeting is taking place of the parties to the Bougainville peace process to consider a range of technical issues which are fundamental to the peace process. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory pointed out in his question, the meeting includes officials from the PNG government, as well as from the Bougainville transitional government, the Bougainville interim government and the Bougainville Revolutionary Army. There are also representatives from the Solomon Islands, Fiji and Vanuatu.I understand that significant progress is being made on issues such as the drafting of a cease-fire arrangement, reconstruction and policing issues. Discussions are also being held on the role and structure of the peace monitoring group that is to replace the current and very successful truce monitoring group after 30 April. The delegates will also address the issue of the role the United Nations will play in the peace process. This meeting is helping to pave the way for the leaders meeting, which is scheduled to take place on Bougainville itself in June.In conclusion, Australia is doing a great deal more than providing transport and venues for various meetings in the peace process and diplomatic support for that process. I think the most fundamental role that Australia can and is playing is the role we play in the reconstruction of Bougainville.As a government, we have committed $132.4 million to the reconstruction process over the next few years and today, as part of that package, we are announcing an additional $1 million allocation for the Bougainville provincial rehabilitation project. That will provide building materials to help rebuild schools, health facilities, roads and bridges. It will allow people on Bougainville to start to resume their normal lives.What we are doing on Bougainville—other than facilitating the peace process—is providing a peace dividend. We are ensuring that, as peace comes, the people of Bougainville know that peace will bring better lives for them, better educational opportunities, better health services, better transport and so on. The government is proud of what it has been able to do to facilitate the Bougainville peace process. It has been a very important component of the government's foreign policy, and we will continue actively to be engaged in this issue.11691169Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall that one of your defences yesterday of Senator Parer was that his 16 shares—worth more than $2 million—were non-voting shares? Where does your code of conduct distinguish between declaring voting and non-voting shares? Doesn't it simply state that ministers must divest themselves of shares where there is a potential conflict of interest? Isn't your argument just a furphy, because he actually gets benefit from the increased share value as the assets in the company have increased from $15 million to $153 in the first year as minister?1169Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is a quarter to three and there have been no questions from the opposition on jobs, no questions from the opposition on interest rates and, might I say, no evidence that Senator Parer has been involved in a conflict of interest. In case those opposite have missed the point, this is all about whether there has been a conflict of interest. It is not about stoking the politics of envy, nor is it about the Leader of the Opposition imagining that, somehow or other, like `Mr Clean', he can slide away from the responsibility of this muckraking against a decent, honest and respectable minister.The Leader of the Opposition has sat there hoping that, somehow or other, it would all sail over his head and that, if it happened to fall in a heap or to blow up on the member for Hotham, it won't matter. He just sits there hoping that it will all work but, if it doesn't, he can say, `Oh dear, Simon ran that, didn't he.' That is your approach. If you have an allegation that this man has been involved in a breach of the conflict of interest requirements, then you make it. Until then, why don't you get back to issues which affect the Australian people?11691169West, Andrea, MPMrs WESTXK6BowmanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Status of Women. Minister, would you please inform the House of recent developments concerning the policies of the major political parties in relation to Australian women?1169Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLPStatus of Women10—I thank the member for Bowman for her question—QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: under standing order 142, how is the minister responsible for the policies of the major parties?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question was on policies relating to women, and I think the question of gender equality is of significant interest in this place. The minister has the call.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—I thank the member for Bowman for her question.QI4PRICEMr Price—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: with great respect, if you listen to the question as it was spoken, it does not refer to the minister's ministerial responsibilities but to the policies of the major parties in relation to women.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: the question was about recent developments as they affected women's policy, and that is a matter for which the minister is clearly responsible. In fact, in this House she is a person singularly responsible when you look at the other side, and we want to hear her answer.AV5QUICKMr Quick—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: under standing order 142, I request that you ask the person who actually asked the question to repeat it so that, if there is some uncertainty—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have heard the question. There is no uncertainty. The minister is responsible for trying to promote gender equality in the Australian community. The question relates to that issue, so I call the Minister for the Status of Women.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—On two occasions this week, I have come into the House to outline the very important policy initiatives that this government has put in place to address issues that are important to women. Those policies include, amongst others: women in leadership; women in the work force—and, in particular, women's participation in the work force; and women and safety issues.If you look at what the Howard government has done in two short years in office, it is interesting to contrast that with the ALP's draft policy platform. If you examine the ALP's draft policy platform, you will find that it contains 180 pages but, of those, only two pages are dedicated to policy to do with women.I would like to raise three of those policy issues. The first one says that Labor resolutely supports equality and choice for women in all aspects of life. I have to say that, after hearing the sneering interjection of the member for Prospect yesterday, I do not think they respect choice.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Government members will remain silent.7T4CROSIOMrs Crosio—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: if the minister would like me to repeat what I said yesterday, I shall, but I thought the minister would answer today's social welfare survey that one in 10 women are leaving the work force because of this government's policy.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Prospect will resume her seat. That is not a point of order. I warn the member for Prospect: resume your seat.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Prospect will remain silent. I warn the honourable member for Prospect.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—As I said, Mr Speaker, after the sneering interjection of the member for Prospect yesterday, I do not think that they respect women's choice. They do not respect the choice of women who want to work in the home, to work with their families, to care for the sick and the elderly. The second policy point in the ALP's policy document says that they want to ensure that women have access to adequate retirement income.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members will remain silent.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—It has taken the Howard government just two years in government to deliver sensible and sound policies for women in retirement. The ALP had 13 years to give the women of Australia security in their retirement years. What did they do? They did absolutely nothing. They ignored that issue altogether.The other point I want to raise in the ALP's draft policy document says that Labor will increase the representation of women in parliament. Let's examine their record of getting women into this place in the current round of preselections. They have not done anything about women's representation in the seat of Batman, the seat of Gellibrand, the seat of Melbourne Ports, the seat of Cowan and the Senate. Women have been forced to withdraw from all of these seats, and now we see the fiasco in the seat of Oxley.In reality, women really do not matter to the ALP. The ALP wants to send women back to the kitchen. Yesterday was a very important test of leadership for the Leader of the Opposition who should have distanced himself from the interjection made by the member for Prospect. Instead, he repeated the name calling and claimed that it was apt because our policies are driving women out of the work force. Let me tell the House the truth of the matter. The statistics on work force participation, particularly in relation to women with dependent children under the age of 15—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will draw her answer to a conclusion.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—The figures have remained very consistent since 1996. Furthermore, ABS figures show total employment of women rose in February.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will draw her answer to a conclusion. The honourable member for Perth.11711171Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—Mr Speaker!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sorry; you will sit down. The honourable member for Calwell, are you on a point of order.QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—It is all right now.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the honourable member for Perth.5V5Mr STEPHEN SMITH—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen today's statement by Senator Parer—Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the government will remain quiet—4V5MOYLANMrs Moylan—I had not finished, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I just asked you to resume your seat because you have been going for so long. It was an unduly lengthy answer, interesting though it might be.Honourable member interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thought she had concluded her answer and therefore I called the next questioner, the honourable member for Perth.5V5Mr STEPHEN SMITH—Thank you, Mr Speaker. Has the Prime Minister seen today's statement by Senator Parer explaining his personal, undeclared shareholding in the company Queensland Coal Mine Management Group (ESP) that, `This is a different thing altogether—it has nothing at all to do with the mining company'? Prime Minister, are you aware that the major shareholder of QCMM Group (ESP) is Advanced Queensland Resources and Mining, the company which operates the open-cut coal mine at Jellinbah? How can Senator Parer assert that his direct, personal, undisclosed shareholding in QCMM Group (ESP) has nothing to do with Queensland Coal Mine Management? Does that not constitute a benefit to Senator Parer? Prime Minister, why not just sack him now?1171Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have a couple of things to say on that. The first thing is that the existence of the shareholding in QCMM Group (ESP) was disclosed to me.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—It was not.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am sorry, it was.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—It was disclosed to you?ZD4Mr HOWARD—To me, that is right. Yes, it was disclosed to me. And it gets better. While I am on the question of disclosures, I notice in the course of this debate that the members of the opposition and some members of the media have made great play of the fact that there was an inadvertent omission from the registry in the Senate.DT4CREANMr Crean—Ha, ha!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Well may you laugh. You may well have been one of the people to whom my predecessor was referring when he said on 29 April 1992, `A number of members, including ministers, have inadvertently left information off the register.' I simply say that, if we are going to get the nonsense that inadvertently leaving something off the Senate registry represents some kind of hanging offence, it is starkly at odds with the practice of ministers in the former government and certainly with the attitude which was taken by the former Prime Minister.The existence of Senator Parer's interests in that company was disclosed to me. I repeat what I said last night. On the basis of the information I have been given, I do not believe that Senator Parer has breached the guidelines. I say again: you can talk as much as you like about corporate structures, you can stoke as much as you choose the fires of political envy—you are playing the politics of political envy because you are trying to denigrate somebody by reference to the fact that he, by dint of his experience, his skill and his hard work, has accumulated some assets for his family—but as yet you have not been able to demonstrate to my satisfaction or, I believe, to the satisfaction of the great majority of the Australian people that Senator Parer has done anything wrong, anything dishonest, that he has been involved in a conflict of interest or that he has failed to match the obligations of being a minister of the Crown. He has been a competent minister and an honest man. Nothing that you said either yesterday or today has altered that unassailable fact.11721172Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Consumer Affairs. Would the minister advise whether the government's restraint of the profligate spending patterns of the previous government has yielded benefits for Australian motorists, particularly those living in country and regional Australia?1172Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPCustoms and Consumer Affairs10—The answer to this question is another piece of good news which will no doubt upset those opposite who do not like to hear any good news. One of the really great successes of this government in economic management is the way in which it has reined back inflation which members opposite could do absolutely nothing about.Motorists, particularly in country areas, are amongst those who are seeing the real benefits of that success in bringing inflation down to low levels. In fact, Mr Speaker, the CPI increases are now at the lowest level for 30 years—the lowest level since the Beatles and Elvis; the lowest level since Menzies and McEwen. That brings very real benefits to Australian motorists because federal excise rates are linked to the CPI. They are adjusted every February and every August in accordance with movements in the CPI index. Last month, Customs was able to announce that, because of the very low movement in the CPI, there would be no increase at all in excises for this half-year period.I might add that this is the second six-monthly interval in a row that there has been no CPI increase. This means that, for more than a year now, there has been no increase in fuel excise. That is the longest period—more than a year—without excise increase since indexation was introduced by Labor in 1983.So it does demonstrate the real benefits to all Australians of having low inflation. It does demonstrate also what would happen if there were per some chance a change of government and we were to go back to the horrible old days when inflation was out of control. Voters would be paying everywhere they went, but they would certainly be paying every time they went to the petrol bowser. Every time they went to the petrol bowser the price would be higher because Labor cannot control inflation. The CPI would go up, and motorists in electorates such as that of the member for Kennedy would be those who would be paying.11721172Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, yesterday you said your departmental head, Max Moore-Wilton, had cleared the Minister for Resources and Energy. Prime Minister, can you assure the House that no-one in your office, the cabinet office or your department at any stage raised concerns about a conflict of interest involving Senator Parer as a minister?1172Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—That is the ultimate proof they have nothing new. You always sort of trawl over things. I tell you what I will tell the member for Hotham. I will tell him precisely this. I got Warwick Parer's declaration of pecuniary interests, which he is required to provide as a minister in accordance with the procedures that I established, early in 1997. I referred that directly to the secretary of my department. The secretary of my department certified to my office in writing that, after examination, he was satisfied it complied with the guideline.Frankly, Mr Speaker, as far as I was concerned, I had other preoccupations like repairing the economic mess that had been left to us by the Leader of the Opposition and devoting myself to the service of the people of Australia. If you imagine that I am going to second-guess every piece of correspondence of a considered type and considered kind that I receive in my office, after a proper inquiry has been made, you have forgotten everything you may have learned when you were a minister.11721172Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Minister, are you aware of a scare campaign being run on university funding and on opportunities for Australian students? Can the minister advise the House how the government is working to provide a strong and vibrant university sector and to provide greater choice and opportunities for university students?1173Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Mr Speaker, I thank the member for Fisher for his question. The government's objectives in relation to universities are to increase the access by Australian students to university places and to increase the total resources and quality of Australian universities. And this policy is working.I am aware that there is a scare campaign being run by the opposition claiming that the government is cutting back resources to universities and cutting student places. Let me put the facts on the table, Mr Speaker, so that every member of this House knows the truth of the situation.The simple fact is that the universities have never had more resources than they have today, and there have never been more students attending Australian universities than there are today. The government-funded operating grant per fully-funded student this year at $11,400 is the highest it has been in this decade. Total university revenue this year is at record levels. In fact, the universities have received, over the last three years, a billion dollars more than if revenue had remained at 1995 levels. So, when members of this House hear the extreme statements from the opposition on university funding and student places, they will know that these statements are absolutely false.The George Orwell who is sitting down the end of the seat there, who is going around the country telling everybody that university places have been cut by 21,000, needs to know the truth, that this year there are 19,000 more students in universities than there were in the last year of the Labor government. And the only clear statement about policy from that side on universities is that they will be cutting places. The promise of the Labor Party is that they will cut out the opportunity for 800 Australian students who this year have their first preference places. They will cut those places away from Australian stu dents, and reduce the access of students in this country to university opportunities.11731173Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, how can you say that the Minister for Resources and Energy has not mocked the guidelines on ministerial conduct when he has manifestly breached his duties by not divesting himself of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of the minister's portfolio responsibility, giving the appearance of using his public office for private purposes, and not relinquishing his directorship of a private company which has investments that are likely to conflict with the minister's public duty? Prime Minister, does your ministerial code of conduct mean anything at all?1173Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I can say it with the greatest of confidence, on the basis of what I said last night, and on the basis also that at no stage during this saga—and I think it is very important for me to make the point, for those who may be trying to follow this debate on the basis of its merit, rather than on the basis of its rhetoric, prejudice and muck-raking—has the opposition, and this includes the question belatedly asked by the Leader of the Opposition, produced any evidence that Senator Parer has been involved in a conflict of interest. Where is the evidence that Senator Parer made specific representation on behalf of companies in which he had an interest? Where is the evidence that there has been a conflict of interest?The opposition is engaged in a muck-raking exercise. The opposition wants to create the circumstance in this country where people who have been successful in business are no longer interested in going into politics. If you continue to conduct a witch-hunt against men and women in Australia who have been successful in their pre-parliamentary lives, you will end up with a state of affairs, as I said earlier, where this place is filled with none other than former trade union officials and former parliamentary staffers. Noble though both of those pursuits may be, I think the Australian experience demands more; it ought to have more: but, the way the opposition is heading, it will have much less.11741174Mutch, Stephen, MPMr MUTCHNK6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will stop for a moment. When the House has achieved some measure of silence, I will call the honourable member for Cook. The honourable member for Cook will repeat his question.NK6Mr MUTCH—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, can you advise the House of the reason behind industrial action being taken at Port Botany by the Maritime Union of Australia? What level of support is there for this action? What has been the impact of the dispute to date? Has there been any indication that the Maritime Union may try to spread the dispute?1174Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—There certainly are indications that the union will want to try to spread this dispute. The reason they are doing that is because they are running a campaign of vengeance against Patricks, because Patricks has sublet part of their property to the farmers. It is also the case that they are running this dispute, which is another example of the uninhibited greed of these people. What they are seeking to do is to take all the rorts, all the allowances and all the other good deals that they have for themselves over the years, build those into an annual allowance, and then they have the cheek and the greed to ask for a $4,500 a year wage increase. This $4,500 wage claim that they have got is their stated reason for the dispute. The dispute is clearly having a damaging impact. We have 4,000 containers stranded; 120 of those containers are of wheat flour, which is meant as aid to Syria and other countries in the Middle East. There are also exports of rice, wool hide, skins, cotton—all farm produce which is being held up by the MUA.The member asks whether or not there is any support for their industrial action. There is no support in the Australian community for this action, except for the support which the Labor Party continue to give to the MUA, defending the absolutely indefensible. Why is it that the Labor Party defend the MUA? The reason is obvious. You only have to look across to their front bench to see all the old hacks of the trade union movement, sent here by the trade union movement. There is the member for Hotham, the ex-ACTU president, then there is his left-wing mate the member for Batman.They do not have many new members in the lower house. If you want to see who the new members of the Labor Party are, go over to the Senate and you will see that the place is chock-a-block with new members, all of whom have come from the trade union movement. Senator Bishop is a union secretary; Senator George Campbell is famous as the one who lost all the jobs and created unemployment in early 1981-82. There is Senator Conroy—an apparatchik, if ever you have seen one, from the trade union movement. There is Brenda Gibbs, from the AMIEU. Nobody has done more to lose jobs for Australia than the AMIEU; she is another one. There is John Hogg—no-one has heard of him—from the shoppies. There is Kate Lundy from here in Canberra, from the CFMEU. She is the one who reckons she built Parliament House and the next day she was tearing it down. Then there is Sue Mackay from Tassie—another nondescript union boss. There is Kerry O'Brien from Tassie; no-one has ever heard of him before. He is just another union boss that they sent up here to do the bidding of the union movement.The Labor Party talk about conflict of interest. The real conflict of interest is the conflict of interest you have from all these Labor front benchers, senators and others, who are ex-union bosses, who are doing what they are told by people like John Coombs. Chardonnay Coombs, the farmer from near Bowral who runs the wharfies and reckons it is okay for a wharfie to be a farmer, but it is not all right for a farmer to be a wharfie. The hypocrisy and the weak leadership are there for all to see; their silence is an embarrassment. ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Censure Motion1175117515:15:001175Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—by leave—I move:That this House:(1) censures the Prime Minister:(a) for his unwillingness to enforce proper standards in relation to his Resources and Energy Minister, who has breached the requirements of both the Prime Minister's Guidelines on Ministerial Conduct and the Senate's Register of Senators' Interests;(b) for his approval of the arrangement whereby Senator Parer was allowed to continue to own—through a company of which he and his wife are the sole directors and owners—coal-mining shares worth in excess of $2 million, despite the fact that this is likely to conflict with his public duty as Minister for Resources and Energy;(c) for his approval of Senator Parer's failure to divest himself of shares, owned personally in QCMM Group (ESP) Pty Ltd, and through Investment Management Pty Ltd (IMPL) in Queensland Coal Mine Management Pty Ltd (and through that entity in a number of other companies in the area of his portfolio responsibility); and(d) for his sweeping aside Senator Parer's failure to comply with the requirements of the Senate's Register of Senators' Interests, in that Senator Parer's Register of Interests statement: (i) fails to list shares held by IMPL; (ii) fails to list shares held personally by the Minister in QCMM Group (ESP) Pty Ltd; and (iii) fails to identify his coal mining investments as a potential conflict of interest;(2) condemns the Prime Minister for not dismissing the Minister for Resources and Energy for his clear breaches both of the guidelines on the conduct of ministers and of the requirements of the Senate's Register of Senators' Interests; and(3) further condemns the Prime Minister for failing to disclose in detail the basis for his departmental Secretary's concluding that there is no conflict of interest involved in the Minister's ownership of significant coal mining interests. This House has just witnessed the classic stonewall when you know that you are out there, that you have been caught and that you militantly and absolutely refuse to face up to your responsibilities. This is a weak Prime Minister confronted by the consequences of having to confront his own ministerial code of conduct—not anybody else's, his. He stood up in this place to make a point about the opposition, saying how much better he was in standards than they were and what a wonderful character he was in terms of his honesty and integrity in relation to the Australian people, and he has subsequently ceased to be able to enforce the code of conduct in relation to his own ministers.He has decided, after seven of them have hit the wall for their inability to uphold the standards, that he will take no more. No matter how good the case, no matter how obvious the conflict, he will not persist in enforcing this part of his obligations as a Prime Minister. He seeks to clothe himself in an argument that the opposition is not entitled to raise these matters in parliament and that we have to come in here and join him in his dorothy dixers of self-congratulation, and if we do not engage in his dorothy dixers of self-congratulation he will take his bat and ball home as far as answers are concerned.We have had no pleasure—but are bound from a sense of duty—in raising frequently in this place his manifest incompetence in a whole range of areas of public policy and that of his ministers. We have had no problem with that. But this is not just a forum for that, Mr Prime Minister. This parliament is the one place that holds the government accountable across the board. We hold the government accountable not just for its management of the economy or other areas of public policy; we hold the government accountable for standards. Every now and then, when we find a minister in clear breach, it is our duty to stand up and raise these matters.Prime Minister, you have come down to a very innovative interpretation of your own standards, but let me remind you of them:Ministers are required to divest themselves of all shares and similar interests in any company or business involved in the area of their portfolio responsibilities. The transfer of interests to a family member or to a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment.Furthermore, you say in your standards:. . . it is important that ministers and parliamentary secretaries avoid giving any appearance of using public office for private purposes.`Avoid giving any appearance': there are no qualifications, Mr Prime Minister in any of these matters—none whatsoever. They are there baldly and they saw the demise not just of Mr Prosser, who was actively involved in business interests associated with his portfolio, but of a couple of your other ministers—one of them your room mate who was not involved in that way.In case you think Senator Parer does not understand his responsibilities, Mr Prime Minister, to divest himself of the shareholdings that he has, I draw your attention to the positions he put at the time he became a minister, when he declared that his holdings in public companies, Santos and BHP, had to be divested. Was he making decisions in relation to Santos immediately? Was he making decisions in relation to BHP? Was he in a position to control anything in relation to them? Was he a large shareholder in either of those companies? Was he into them for $2 million? No, because he then had the correct interpretation of what his duty was, and that was, where a potential conflict of interest existed, you exited in accordance with your guidelines. And he did not divest to a family trust. He did not divest to his wife. He did not divest in any way, shape or form. In no way, shape or form did he divest to anybody else related to him. He was out.But what stands at the heart of this is that, while he was out of all of that, he was into this company for $2 million worth of shares. They were not worth that, though, when he became minister. They were worth about one-tenth of that when he became minister. They are now worth that. That is why your guidelines, Mr Prime Minister—let me explain them to you—have words like `appearance of a potential conflict of interest'. Because when you become minister for coal and you own shares in coal mines and those shares increase tenfold while you happen to be the minister for coal, a reasonable perception develops out there in the community that there is the potential for an appearance at least of a conflict of interest when in fact there is a conflict of interest.He wants us to cite specific examples of where he might have made a decision that would benefit him in some way. I suppose we could talk about retention of the diesel fuel rebate scheme and his involvement in that—in fact, he identified one of his companies as having received $1.7 million per annum over three years in that particular industry—or we could talk about lifting export controls on coal. We believe that the mines with which he is associated are exporters; indeed, they would be almost unique coalmines if they were not—not completely unique, but almost unique.He led a delegation of 12 on a coal mission to India. Did he go there and say, `You can buy from every coalmine in Australia, but not from the one that I am a substantial $2 million owner of'? He has been a key player in the government's greenhouse strategy, where the interests of the coal industry have been front and centre in the government's mind. You do not think there is just a possibility, Prime Minister, that an appearance of a conflict of interest might actually occur in relation to any of those matters?Because you are weak, Prime Minister, because you hide yourself, you are now in a situation where you dare not lose another minister—so weak you are. You are trying to raise this notion of envy on our side of the House because we do not approve of the way your minister manifestly breaches your position. You can go through all the persiflage and all the smokescreening that you like, Prime Minister, but the public out there expects an opposition to go through the process of enforcing a few standards in this place and, when a minister does not uphold those standards, mention them.What slip-sliding you did yesterday! You wanted a notion to develop out there that these shares could not be disposed of: that this man was shackled to his shares; that this man struggling to break those shackles found that he could not get himself clear; that he was out there doing his level best to make sure that this $2 million interest did not actually remain in his possession and remain in companies within his control; that somehow he just missed that; and that, somehow, those three people—who are the only people he has to approach in order to be able to divest himself—kept him locked in there in slavery. No wonder you evaded the question on that when it was asked of you by one of my colleagues here today—it is a piece of nonsense.Then you came out with this notion that somehow or other it makes it all right because they are non-voting shares. No wonder you evaded that too. In what I read out to you, there is no distinction between voting and non-voting shares. There is a very good reason that there is no distinction, Prime Minister: it is because there is no necessary difference between the two on dividends or possibilities of benefit. In fact, if you go through the various categories in Senator Parer's company shareholdings you will find that the shares he possesses are, indeed, to a considerable degree more beneficial than some of the others.Then you came up with this other furphy that neither Senator Parer nor his wife received an income distribution from the trust either in 1995-96 or 1996-97. He may well want to say that, but we understand that, in 1996 alone, some $300,000 worth of dividends passed into or through his hands—while he was a minister—via this process. But it is an irrelevant consideration whether or not he directly perceived it, because the trust still captures all unrealised accrued capital gains which would not be distributed as income.In the same year that Senator Parer received no income from the trust, 1995-96, the net assets of a company in which he holds the contested shares grew from $15 million to $153 million. As I said, it grew 10-fold in one year. I would not mind not getting an income distribution either if I could make a 1,000 per cent capital gain in one year. If there were prior year or current year losses to offset any dividends from QCMM, then the income could be distributed in subsequent years—upon retirement, for example—and would be completely tax free or it could be distributed to other beneficiaries of the trust.That is what is available to him, Prime Minister, apart from taking the nicker in the back pocket immediately. That is why the issue of gain arises here. That is why the issue of the perception of the possibility of gain arises here. We have those standards so that when somebody, no matter how they choose to dispense of it, receives up to $300,000 a year in dividends, they place themselves in a situation where they divest themselves of that in situations where decisions are being taken. Prime Minister, there is no difference between the situation in which he found himself with the things he divested himself of and the situation in relation to the things that he still maintains; the only difference is the size of the benefit. He divested himself of things from which he benefited somewhat and continued to hold things from which he benefited—or would potentially have benefited—a very great deal.We sit here in this chamber listening to the blandishments of the government on the so-called rorts on the waterfront. What is a watersider who is being invited to improve his productivity supposed to do? What is he supposed to believe when he sees a minister sitting in this place and concealing—and misleading in the process of concealing—the fact that he can benefit, or ensure others related to him benefit, from some $300,000 a year. We ought not to be bringing the spouses of members and the children of members into this category—ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Yes, but you are.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—What spouses and children do with their own business interests is their own business, but this is not. This comes through as another sleight of hand because of what you tried to portray yesterday: that the people who have the controlling interest in this are somehow or other a diversified group, namely, his children, and that he has a one in nine interest in that process. The company which controls this—the trustee company, as opposed to the private trust—has nine shares, which have not been declared in his returns, of which he holds eight. That is the controlling interest. That was another piece of your misleading yesterday—the company holds nine shares, of which he controls eight. This is not something being built up by the kids, this is not an independent activity of his children; this is, front and centre, a product of his own endeavour. They are the mechanisms that he put in place.You go and see all the battling Australians out there, all the Australians who earn an average income of about $35,000 per year—whom you suggest that from time to time you are going to find rorts about and beat them up, who stand shoulder to shoulder with the ordinary workers in this country whom your industrial relations legislation oppresses so massively—and ask them to think about a government that is prepared to ignore its standards for somebody who earns 10 times what they get each year.The distinctions in the situations of Mr Short and Senator Parer bear looking at. Mr Short has departed this place—what did he go for? Well, he owns 6,679 ANZ shares, worth—through the Short family trust—approximately $64,000. Mr Parer owns just over one per cent of the issued share capital in QCMMPL worth an estimated $2.3 million. Short stated:. . . I—meaning the trust—have held shares in the ANZ Bank for a considerable time and that this holding has been recorded in the register of senators' interests since its inception.Parer claims as some sort of defence that the trust has been in existence for 28 years and that he has a one-ninth interest in it; ignoring completely the situation I have referred to of the company which owns the shares.Short, while not owning the ANZ shares in his own name, declared them all—and all the shares held by the trust in his Senate register of interests, as he held an equitable interest in them by virtue of being a beneficiary of the Short family trust. Parer does not disclose the fact that the Parer family trust owns 16 C-class shares in the QCMMPL. Part of his defence is that they are non-voting shares. I have already dealt with that.Short declared the fact that he was a shareholder in Parkwick Pty Ltd, the trustee of the Short family trust. Parer fails to declare the fact that he is a shareholder in Investment Management Pty Ltd—the trustee of W.R. Parer family trust which in fact, as I said, owns eight of the nine shares on issue. Short declared that he was a director of his trustee company Parkwick Pty Ltd. Parer fails to declare his directorship of Investment Management Pty Ltd. He actually stated:I do not control it; in fact, it is controlled by others.He is both a majority shareholder and a director of the trustee company. He was also responsible for lodging the company's annual returns with the ASC. Short declared all his shareholdings, both personal and those held by the Short family trust. Parer fails to disclose the fact that he personally holds, in his own name, 44 shares in QCM group ESPPL. Dividends from ANZ shares, in Short's case, would have been worth several thousand dollars a year only. As we have seen in the case of Parer, the dividend was worth some $300,000, in all probability, in the first year.Upon discovery by the opposition that Short had a conflict of interest, he informed the Senate that he would be disposing of his ANZ shares. Parer claims that, as QCMMPL is a private company, there is no market in the shares and `there is just no scope for public disinvestment, as is the case with listed shares'. All he has to do is to get the prior consent of three people in order to be able to get rid of them.Prime Minister, you just do not have any standards when it comes to enforcing this area. You have none at all. This has become, after delivery, a non-core promise. We do remember your pride and arrogance when you sought to draw a distinction between yourselves and us on these matters when you came into office. We note, from that, your regular retreats. But, above all, we note this. We note that Parer understands what his obligation is. He understands it completely. We note it even in the divestment to which you refer. We note too that, having thoroughly understood that, he has absolutely no claim of misapprehension in relation to these particular shares.Your coal minister owns $2 million worth of coal shares and you tell the Australian people, and all the editorial writers who have told you exactly what your duty is, that as far as you and your standards are concerned that is not a conflict of interest—apparent, real or actual. You tell them that. Well, you can go and tell it to the marines, Prime Minister. We know what you are: a weak, useless Prime Minister who cannot enforce decent standards in this place.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?DT4CREANMr Crean—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:35:001179Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I could perhaps start my response to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) by pointing out that the address that he has just delivered is a perfect demonstration that you never go into a censure motion with a prepared text. If you do, you might read out something that has already been contradicted during question time. I refer to the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition that the 44 shares had not been disclosed. Those 44 shares were disclosed. They were disclosed by Senator Parer to me, and the Leader of the Opposition has been caught short in relation to the claims that he has made. But, Mr Speaker, let me go to a far more serious charge against the Leader of the Opposition, who finally pumps himself up and, in a confected display of simulated outrage, endeavours to persuade the Australian people and this parliament that he is a person who is interested in ministerial standards.This is the same Leader of the Opposition who stood by the member for Fremantle (Dr Lawrence). This is the same Leader of the Opposition who continues to stand by Senator Nick Bolkus. This is the same Leader of the Opposition who is prepared to countenance a huge interest in a piggery held by the former Prime Minister. That, of course, was not a conflict of interest. And this is the same Leader of the Opposition who leads a party which at no stage during the whole of this issue has met the single obligation that it is required to meet if it is to make this charge stick. You can rant and rave as much as you like about large sums of money. You can grab statements out of the air about coal ministers and coal shares—that is akin to saying a primary industry minister should never own a farm; that is akin to saying that a federal treasurer who has a mortgage should never take a decision on interest rates; that is akin to creating a set of circumstances in which we end up with a government which is composed, as I said at question time, entirely of trade union officials and former ministerial staffers.Can I say very seriously to those who sit opposite that, if this kind of excursion into the politics of envy, if this kind of excursion into character muckraking, if this kind of attempt to drag the adult children of ministers of my government into the political combat of this parliament—the more you interject, the more you proclaim your sensitivity on this issue—if you imagine by this kind of muckraking that you are making any impression on the battlers out there, if you imagine that this is really advancing your political cause, I think you ought to give the matter a great deal more consideration.The public is fed up with this kind of politics. The public is fed up with this kind of character assassination. The public is not stupid. The public goes to the nub of the issue, and the public asks a few fundamental questions. The first question they ask is: was Senator Parer doing anything dishonest? No, he was not. The second question they ask is: where is the conflict of interest? There is no conflict of interest. In all of the fulminations of the Leader of the Opposition, in all of the questions that have been asked by the member for Hotham (Mr Crean), in all of the questions that have been asked by the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith), at no stage have they produced any evidence. They have not produced a skerrick of evidence that Warwick Parer did anything as minister to advance his own personal interest.VD4EVANSMr Gareth Evans—So what?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition says, `So what?' A conflict of interest is when somebody uses his or her ministerial position to enrich his own personal interest. Let me say that again. Let me spell it out very clearly.RH4KERRMr Kerr—He must have known.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison will remain silent.RH4KERRMr Kerr—How could he not know?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Let me say it again so that even those on the other side may understand it. You have a conflict of interest where you can demonstrate that the minister has used his ministerial office to advance his own personal position.RH4KERRMr Kerr—He must have known.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Denison.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—There is no evidence that he has done that. There is no evidence at all that he has done that. At no stage did the Leader of the Opposition discharge that obligation. At no stage did the Leader of the Opposition accept the obligation to go to that issue and to demonstrate to the Australian public that Senator Parer had put his hand in the till to his own advantage, that Senator Parer had gone along to the cabinet and said, `My family trust has got an interest in this company. I am going to do something to help that company.' At no stage did Senator Parer take any decision as a minister that advantaged the position of that company—at no stage. That is the nub of this matter.It is for that reason that I regard Senator Parer as not being guilty of any charge made against him by the Leader of the Opposition. Despite the fact that we had an hour and a quarter of question time and we had 20 minutes of hot air from the Leader of the Opposition, at no stage during all of that time did the opposition advance any new material, did they provide any new evidence, did they assert any new fact that went to that central issue. Where is the evidence of a conflict of interest? Where have you been able to tell the parliament that Senator Parer used his ministerial position to advance his own private interest? There is no evidence of that. At no stage has there been any attempt to do that. Mr Beazley interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—The Leader of the Opposition makes an interjection about standards. This is the man who is withered into silence by Senator Bolkus, the man who is humiliated into inaction by a shadow Attorney-General who is not fit to aspire to the office of the first law officer of the Commonwealth of Australia, the man who is prepared to allow people to corrupt the court processes and help Christopher Skase. He has the nerve to come in here and traduce the reputation of a decent, honest Australian like Warwick Parer and, in the process, drag his family into it.I notice when I trawl through some of the returns that are made by people in this House that, when they are asked questions about the holdings of their wife or their husband, they say, on occasions, rather disingenuously, `I don't really know what my wife's assets are.' They are perfectly entitled to say that. Quite frankly, I do not seek to inquire into the assets of the wives or husbands of people who sit in this parliament, and I reject the puny attempts of the Leader of the Opposition to drag Warwick Parer's seven adult children into this tawdry character assassination. That is what you have done. It is no good interjecting with confected outrage. You are the crowd that are dragging families into this.You talk about equal rights. You talk about the independence of women. You talk about the separate dignity of adult children. But when it comes to the crunch you are prepared to lump them all in with the political career of the man in the family. You are hypocrites on these things because, when push comes to shove, if you can drag a wife into it, if you can drag a child into it, you will do it. That is what Paul Keating used to do, and that is what you have done today. You parade as though you are above all of this, that you do not really want to be involved in it and you are really a little bit reluctant to be involved in it. You leave it all to Simon. You hope he makes a bit of headway but, if he falls over, that will not matter because he does have a lean and hungry and rather mean look about him. You do not really mind about that. But you cannot escape the responsibility.So can I return to what this debate is all about. It is about a very simple question, and that is: has Warwick Parer been guilty of any conflict of interest? The answer is no. Has Warwick Parer been guilty of any dishonesty? No. Has Warwick Parer been guilty of not reaching the high ministerial standards demanded by government? No. Has the Leader of the Opposition debauched decent parliamentary debate by raising this? Of course he has.Most importantly, we all know that this matter will never be written and it will probably never be reported, but we all know that this—in the words of Senator Robert Ray—is a payback for our raising Nick Bolkus. That is what this is all about. It is as cheap and common or garden variety as that. I think the Leader of the Opposition fails to understand and fails to appreciate that just as he got no political mileage or no political bounce out of that little exercise relating to others in 1996 so it is the case that on this occasion the Australian public are really sick and tired of this sort of politics. The Australian public are fed up with an opposition that, firstly, left this country in an appalling economic mess, secondly, has made no attempt in the two years that it has been in opposition to assemble an alternative policy and, thirdly, does not address the important bread-and-butter issues of the day.Let me remind members that this is the day on which the lowest unemployment rate recorded for Australia for seven or eight years has been published. Do you think the Labor Party would be interested in that? Do you think members of the Labor Party, who are meant to be out of the loins of the trade union movement and who are meant to be concerned about the interests of the working men and women of Australia, are interested? Of course they are not. All they can do is traduce the reputation of an honest man. All they can do is drag the families of ministers into parliamentary debate. All they can do is trump up phoney allegations of conflict of interest.It matters not what a person's individual wealth is, whether it be a small amount or a large amount, we are neither a nation that should resent or be jealous of people who are successful nor a nation that should deny the poorest and the impecunious the opportunity to aspire to the highest office in this country. We are in every sense an egalitarian nation. That means that we not only should respect the less fortunate and the less well off but should never sneer at, feel envious towards or resent those in our community who through their hard work and their skill have been successful.On this occasion you have got a man who in his pre-parliamentary career was very successful in business. I am proud of that. I am not ashamed of having people on my side of politics who have been successful in business. Australia is a better country, my government is a better government, this parliament is a better institution and the future of Australia will be brighter if we can attract more men and women with a business background into this place. That is very important to Australia's future. I make that comment in no small or idle way. I say to the opposition, to those who report politics and to the Australian people that, if we continue the politics of sneering at, denigrating and trying to demean personal success, we will render this parliament a poorer place.What incentive is there for any man or woman of any assets or any affairs to come into this parliament in the future. You face the prospect of having your wife and kids dragged into every parliamentary debate. You face the prospect of having every share, every asset, anything you have ever accumulated trawled through by the muck-rakers of the political staff of the opposition and the cynics in other parts of this building who are perfectly prepared to apply standards to others that they would never apply to themselves. I believe this motion represents yet another notch towards a situation where you are literally intimidating out of the consideration of a parliamentary career many men and women who can make an enormous contribution to the future of this country. And much and all as you may dress this up, you cannot avoid it.The crowning hypocrisy of this whole motion is that it is moved by the Leader of the Opposition, who is too weak, too gutless, too fearful, too trembling and too intimidated to sack Nick Bolkus. It is for that reason that I move an amendment to the motion. I move:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"this House censures the Leader of the Opposition for his failure to dismiss Senator Bolkus for his clear lack of the standards required to be the shadow Attorney-General".DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order before I respond to the motion. I ask you whether the amendment which has been moved is in order. I draw attention to a statement made by you in this House in November 1991—UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Oh!DT4CREANMr Crean—I see. He can forget about it, like Senator Parer can forget about his shares, can he?Mr Truss interjecting—DT4CREANMr Crean—You let me and don't interject, you dope.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will raise his point of order and stop making allusions to other people.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, this is what you had to say on that occasion:. . . the practice in the last few years in the House has been that we should reverse the standard meeting procedure and allow a motion that is totally contradictory to the original to be accepted. I put to you that this motion is against the standard meeting procedure which denies the opportunity for any amendment to take the exact reverse course of the original motion. The original motion, if you look at it, was censuring the Prime Minister.It is a motion now that they are moving by way of amendment that reverses that by seeking to censure the Leader of the Opposition. Are you going to uphold what you believed in 1991?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—As I thought this might be raised by the honourable member, it so happens that I looked back at the Votes and Proceedings . On 24 September 1987 at page 77, on 29 November 1988 at page 939, on 27 November 1989 at page 1651, on 28 November 1991 at page 1228—and I can go on with another 30-odd examples of exactly this type of amendment being accepted. While I might have my own preference as to whether or not the ordinary procedures are necessarily being followed, it has become an established practice of this House. It has become a practice for amendments of this kind to be accepted in this House.15:52:001182Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—If the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) believed what he just said in defence of Senator Parer, why did he require other minister's to divest their shares when they were caught out? Why did he insist upon them selling those shares? Why did he bring in a code of conduct after all that made no mention of having to demonstrate the actual detail? The Prime Minister's code of conduct says:. . . it is important that ministers and parliamentary secretaries avoid giving any appearance of using public office for private purposes . . . ensuring that no conflict or apparent conflict between interests and duties arises.We do not have to demonstrate the actual conflict, although we think we can. All that has to be demonstrated is the appearance of conflict. That is what the Prime Minister will not answer.What have we now got? We have a footnote to the code of conduct. It is written in invisible ink. The Prime Minister makes it up as he goes along and whenever he is caught in a crisis. The only time he is forced to defend this code of conduct is when we catch him out.We found out today that he knew that Senator Parer had shares which he had not disclosed. What did the Prime Minister do? He did nothing. He flick-passed it to the head of his department and said that he was too busy to actually deal with it. On the Kerry O'Brien program in October 1996 the Prime Minister said, `The guidelines say you've got to get rid of shares in a company that is operating in the area of your portfolio responsibility.' People might think that the average person is silly and that we are pretty stupid, but that is pretty clear, I would have thought. I will say it again: `You've got to get rid of shares in a company that is operating in the area of your portfolio responsibility.' Game, set and match.What have we got in relation to this? We have the minister for coal owning a coal mine. I would have thought that if he owns shares in a coal mine that is owning shares in an area directly associated with your responsibility. He has got to get rid of them.The Prime Minister asks the question: what do we expect these people to do in those circumstances? We have not, despite what he says, got a problem with people who have been successful in business coming into this House. We welcome it, we encourage it and there should be more of it. But he asks: what do you want us to do? We will tell him what we want them to do. We want them to either disclose or dispose. It is as simple as that. If they believe that they are entitled to hold shares in a business and that does not constitute a conflict or an appearance of conflict, let them state it on the register. There is provision on the register for that. This is what Senator Parer should have done.What sort of man is it that, in the context of the category that says `Any other interests that may conflict with your portfolio responsibilities', declares that he is a Christian, declares that he is a ratepayer, declares that he is a taxpayer, declares that he is a father and a grandfather but does not declare he has got $2 million worth of shares in a coal company? He says, `Oh no, I do not have to declare that. I am a taxpayer, a ratepayer and a Christian, but I am not going to tell you about my shares.' What a sham. But there is more. He actually told the Prime Minister about these shares. And what did the Prime Minister do. He is part of the cover up.What we also got yesterday was Minister Parer admitting in the Senate, after the Prime Minister had come into this House to clear him, that he was in technical breach of the guidelines. What happened to Senator Short and Senator Gibson? When the Prime Minister sought their dismissals, the Prime Minister said:Both Gibson and Short have been forced to leave the ministry simply because they were in technical default of the rules. They were technically in breach in those circumstances. They had to go. I'm sorry about that, but they're the rules. They were the Prime Minister's words in 1996. If it was appropriate to sack them for technical breaches of the guidelines, why not Senator Parer? I will tell you why. If Senator Parer goes—apart from the fact that he would be the eighth minister in two years that this government has had to cut loose because they have either rorted or conducted something contrary to the guidelines—who is going to be behind him? The head of the Prime Minister's department, because this was the person who gave the tick to Senator Parer. This was the person who the Prime Minister gave delegated authority to to look through all of his ministers' affairs and satisfy himself that they were clear so that the Prime Minister could tell the nation that every one of his ministers was above board. The fact of the matter is that there is a technical breach admitted by Senator Parer and, on the standards of Jim Short and Brian Gibson, he should be gone on that count.The Prime Minister tried to make the distinction in his defence of Senator Parer yesterday by saying that these are non-voting shares. He did not tell people—we had to disclose it—that these 16 shares were worth more than $2 million: `Just a small parcel of shares but, by the way, don't tell anyone they are $2 million worth.' He tried to make the point that they are non-voting shares. The point we are trying to make is that, whether they are non-voting or not, what matters is the vote in the cabinet room. It is the vote that Senator Parer is exercising because he has been given responsibility for a portfolio in an area that he holds interest in. That is where the vote is important. So far as the non-voting dimension of the shares that are held are concerned, it is meaningless, because if the shares accrue in value Senator Parer gets a benefit.Let us just look at the accrual of value in terms of these 16 shares. In 1995 they were worth $200,000. One year later when the minister was sworn into the ministry they were worth $2 million. This is a mob that has the gall to come in here to talk about the rorts of wharfies. What about this rort? What about the fact that you can increase your assets, your entitlement, tenfold without even lifting a finger?What about the circumstance, as we indicated today in this parliament, when Senator Parer was issued these shares? The Prime Minister tried to make the point that this family trust has been around for 28 years. The fact of the matter is that these shares were issued only in 1993—16 of them were issued for $1 each. Immediately their capital value became $200,000; a year later, $2 million. Don't have the gall to tell us about the poor battlers being concerned about what we are on about. They want to know how you can get into this act. They want to know how you can become a millionaire overnight when you happen to be a minister. They want to know why it is fair that, being minister for coal, you can have shares in a coal mining company and get defended by the Prime Minister saying, `There is no conflict of interest.'But, I tell you what, this scam gets worse. Not only did the capital value increase from $200,000 to $2 million; these shares were issued in 1993—$1 shares, I might say to you—and immediately after the issue of the 16 shares to Senator Parer, at a meeting in February in Brisbane, they declared a dividend on those shares. This is three seconds after the original decision. Do you know what the dividend was worth from those 16 shares: $210,000. Not bad for a morning's work, that lot. And that is just the dividend. What about the capital value? But, hang on, it gets worse again.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—It couldn't.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Yes. Who was chairman of the company that issued the shares and determined the dividend?Opposition members—Senator Parer!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Senator Parer as chair. How could he forget this? How could he think that this should not be declared? I tell you what, if this government thinks the public will buy that, they will be out of office before too long.Let me go on, again, because it was not only in 1993 that this great windfall came Senator Parer's way. It so happens that the dividend stream from all of the issues on these 16 shares since 1993—which, if they were sold, would realise more than $2 million—is $850,000. That is $850,000 in fully franked dividends. That means they do not get taxed again. They are tax free—a tax-free stream of $850,000. That is the equivalent of $1.4 million over the space of about five years. From doing what?What we also have got is a circumstance in which, in this House, the Prime Minister said yesterday that Senator Parer and his wife got nothing—nothing, mind you—in 1995-96. But what the Prime Minister would not answer was whether he was aware that Senator Parer chaired another meeting in 1995 that issued him, amongst other things, almost $100,000 in further dividends. That is in 1995-96. There is no point in saying they went off to the family; the fact of the matter is that dividend stream went to the owners of the shares. The owner of the shares was Senator Parer's private company and that private company is controlled by himself and his wife. He owns eight shares; his wife owns one. Both are directors; both are in total control. They can make decisions as to where that money goes, but the income stream went to them.That is what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with the fact that this information was hidden from the public when it should have been disclosed. The minister knew that he had to declare interests in the coal industry because he declared his directorship in the company. What he did not do was declare his shareholding in the company. When he became a minister, he had to give up the directorship and chairmanship because it was on the public record. What he did not do was give up the shares, because he had never told anyone before. That is what we are on about here.We are on about the fact that Senator Parer has not disclosed what he is required in the parliament to disclose and what the Prime Minister's code of conduct requires him to disclose. There is no point in hiding behind that O'Keefe letter, which is what Senator Parer said he knew nothing about the other day. The fact of the matter is that the code of conduct for the Senate requires, in relation to the disclosure of shares, any shares that are held by a company that the minister and his family control—that is, IMPL. They control it. Nine out of nine shares are controlled by the minister and his wife—the family. Under the code of conduct in the Senate, Minister Parer, from day one, was required to declare that.I would urge the Prime Minister—I know he is not here; he does not like hearing this stuff—to go and do a bit of homework on this. There is no point trying to hide behind some device that says Senator Parer did not get a letter in 1997. He has been under obligation ever since he has been a senator—ever since this code came in—to disclose it. What we have is a circumstance in which a minister has hidden his shareholding and it is a shareholding in an area of his portfolio responsibility. The fact that he has held it demonstrates that there can be not only the appearance of conflict of interest but also actual conflict of interest. This minister is guilty on both counts. He has failed to disclose. He has failed to dispose. The Prime Minister is required to ask for his resignation. If the Prime Minister's code of conduct means anything, he will enforce it. Minister Parer's resignation should be with us today. (Time expired)16:07:001185Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Australian public who are listening to this debate or who are in the gallery are going to ask themselves these questions this afternoon. Why is it that the Australian Labor Party is not interested in jobs for young Australians? Why is it that the Australian Labor Party has got nothing to say about interest rates? Why is it that the Australian Labor Party has got nothing to say about the state of the economy? Why is it that the Australian Labor Party, on the flimsiest of non-evidence whatsoever, can occupy the whole afternoon of this parliament in the pursuit of a non-issue?The answer is simply this: if you do not have a policy, if you do not have a record, if you do not have a position, if you do not have a direction and, what is more, if you do not have a leader, the thing you need more than anything else is distraction—distraction from those issues that the government is working on and distraction from those issues where your own incompetence is displayed. This censure is an absolute nonsense.Yesterday the chief muckraker for the Australian Labor Party—the man who stands at this dispatch box full of hate, venom and envy, the old President of the ACTU himself, the man who specialises in the parliamentary muckrake, the member for Hotham (Mr Crean)—came in here and held up a diagram which he alleged was a web of deceit, as I recall, until he was forced to withdraw it. He made out to this parliament that, in some form or fashion, Senator Parer had entered into some complicated arrangements to try to avoid disclosure requirements that were put in place as part of the code of conduct of this Prime Minister (Mr Howard).Of course, if you are a Prime Minister who has not got access to all of these diagrammatic matters, it takes some time to put it together. But, after the Prime Minister had put it together and spoken to his permanent head and investigated the file, not only did he find that all of these matters—every single one of these matters—had been fully disclosed but he found not that this arrangement, this trust, had been in existence as some device to avoid a ministerial conduct requirement which began to apply to Senator Parer from March 1996 but that this arrangement had been in place for 28 years. For 28 years Senator Parer had had this arrangement. It was no web of deceit to avoid anything. It was an arrangement that Senator Parer, whilst he was an executive in the coalmining industry, had put in place to manage his family's finances. There was no web of deceit here, except from the dispatch box opposite—a web of deceit in an attempt to try to put together a diagram and to make allegations against Senator Parer which are wrong, false and unwarranted and which we reject in their entirety.This is an opposition which has engaged in a campaign of muckraking, and I want the Australian press to focus on this. Who was it that started the travel allowance fear and loathing campaign? It was Old Hotham, wasn't it? It was Old Hotham—the man who had been taking parliamentary visits to France to look at the change of government. He was the one who got up on the travel allowance matters, wasn't he? He was the one who went on national television, do you recall, and claimed that he had downloaded the DAS computer and was dealing in stolen property in relation to travel allowances? We all remember how his nice little number on travel allowances ended up in relation to the Australian Labor Party.Then last week we had this big campaign from the Australian Labor Party on the Natural Heritage Trust. Do you recall that campaign? This was the campaign that said that the Natural Heritage Trust had enriched Howard Lawrence Baillieu and Richard Percy Clive Baillieu as a result of allocations that had been made by this government after its election in March 1996. That allegation, which the Labor Party was able to run for a day, was disproved the next day when it was proved that, far from benefiting from the March 1996 Natural Heritage Trust, Howard Lawrence Baillieu had been dead for 37 years. That was the scandal—that from March 1996 we had been dishing out money to this dead man.Then we had Richard Percy Clive Baillieu. He was another one of the beneficiaries out of the Natural Heritage Trust, according to the Australian Labor Party. He had been dead for 57 years. This really was a policy! Somehow we had managed to dish money out to dead men and they were getting a benefit—or so it was alleged by the Australian Labor Party. But we all know, as the member for Hotham knows more than anybody else, if you put the smear up, if you create enough smoke around, if you yell loudly enough, if you try to inject the politics of envy into it, you can fool the press gallery for a day or two, but the facts in this case are not susceptible to any of the interpretations that he puts on them.The second thing that Old Hotham does—and he practised this in his ACTU days—is he tries to feed the politics of greed and envy. You put the smoke up—it does not matter if you have a few dead men in there—and then you try to feed the politics of greed and envy. He said, `There were these shares that were issued for $1 and then they became worth so much. They were issued in 1993 or 1995.' He said, `Look at the poor people of Australia. They would want to know how to get into the act on this kind of thing.' How do the people of Australia get into the act on all of these sorts of share issues? I will tell you: join the Telstra float. The people of Australia who were given an opportunity by this government to join in on the part privatisation of Telstra got the opportunity to buy shares at $1.95 and they are now worth $3.60. What would Old Hotham say about that? `Oh, outrageous! Every person who has Telstra shares should be sacked from their job!' That is probably the logic that he has got.Then he went on and he said—and listen to this; this is an absolute classic—`What is more, that company paid a fully franked dividend so that when it was paid to the shareholders it didn't get taxed again.' That is the whole object of franking. The whole object of franking is to tax the dividend in the company so it is paid out to shareholders tax free. Is my memory serving me correct, or was it the Australian Labor Party that introduced full franking? I remember Mr Keating and Australian Labor Party members standing up and saying, `We are going to introduce full franking so that dividends aren't taxed twice.' Then we have the economic genius from Hotham saying, `They paid it out and it couldn't be taxed a second time.' These are the absolute intellectual depths to which these people will sink.Honestly, getting lectures from the member for Hotham on tax rorts! This was the old R&D syndicate man in the back of the Roller promising everybody R&D syndicates. This was the government that introduced infrastructure borrowings which made it optional to pay tax if you were earning more than $500,000. Who closed that down? We did. Who closed down the R&D syndicates? We did. Who opposed us? The Australian Labor Party did. Who took measures in relation to superannuation? We did. Who opposed us? The Australian Labor Party did.This is the tactic which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says includes walking along both sides of the street. That is what he calls it. Anyone who wants a tax benefit walks on one side of the street, and when you want to run fear and envy politics you walk on the other side of the street. We do not walk on either side of the street—we walk right down the middle. That is our policy. We took decisions in relation to the R&D syndicates. We took on that particular rort and we closed it. We took a decision on infrastructure borrowing fair and square, and we closed it.When we were in opposition, the old member for Hotham, the old man who knew more about syndicates than anybody else, was not screaming at the dispatch box: he was on the other side of the street, or should I say in the back of the Roller on the other side of the street, in relation to those particular tax matters. Then the opposition said things like, `Oh well, even if we cannot prove that there is anything wrong with the arrangements in relation to taxation because all they were doing was observing the law,' or even, `We cannot prove that there was anything wrong in relation to the ownership of shares because they appreciated in accordance with the growth of the industry and the development of the mining industry.'We support the development of the coalmining industry. Would we be upset if the coalmining industry in Australia was actually developing wealth and creating jobs? We would not be upset by that. A lot of government policy is designed to do just that. Then the member for Hotham says, `Oh well, there might have been the appearance of a conflict of interest.' What appearance of a conflict of interest was there in relation to this?Senator Parer had made a complete disclosure of that trust to the Corporate Trustee and to the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had been fully notified of all of the events. They can point to no decision that Senator Parer took that was taken to advantage his private interests—not one. Yet the opposition now says that if there was no conflict of interest, there could have been an appearance of a conflict of interest because he had an interest as a minister in getting a profitable coalmining industry in Australia and he had been employed in the coalmining industry of Australia.Let me ask you this question: should a farmer who is the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy who has an interest in getting a profitable agricultural sector in this country be disbarred from that particular office? Everyone engaged in economic portfolios has an interest in getting a profitable economy. Are we in a conflict of interest situation? Do people in this House who want more jobs for young people and who have children have a conflict of interest? Is it a conflict of interest to want to create jobs for young people when you have a young person in your family who is looking for a job?The upshot of the Labor Party position—and I cannot help but believe that it is deliberate—is that any person who has experience in any industry should be disqualified from making any decision in relation to that interest. The Labor Party maxim is: the more incompetent you are, the more qualified you are for office. One can see why that suits their way of thinking. These are people who lecture about conflict of interest whilst they sit on the front bench of the opposition as members of trade unions.Members opposite keep up their trade union subscriptions and membership whilst still in the parliament. They vote on laws to give trade unions special privileges, special exemptions, special tax free status and special prerogatives under the law. That is not a conflict of interest, it is just doing your job as a good trade union member. There is an objective to try to put together rules which will uniquely disqualify qualified people from being engaged in any industry that they understand. It will lead to the qualification of only those who have a trade union background, because that is the way the Labor Party likes it.While watching the 7.30 Report on Tuesday 10 March I was amazed to see the Leader of the Opposition obviously being stung by his own record which is coming back to haunt him. He made the claim—and it is one that he is going to hear a lot more about between now and the next election—that he was proud to have been a member of the Keating and Hawke governments. This is the man who talks to us about standards. The Keating government had a Prime Minister who owned a piggery while he was running banking and economic policy. The Leader of the Opposition used to stand up and defend him.I remember Mr Keating defending his ownership of the piggery and attacking the opposition—and this would sit really well with the member for Hotham's speech today—and Keating said to the coalition, which included Senator Parer: You are mostly scrubbers. Most of you have not got any ability or two zacks to your name.That was the Labor Party when they were in office attacking the coalition because we were not wealthy. That was the Keating government of which Mr Beazley was proud. That was the Keating government which defended Carmen Lawrence after a royal commission found that she had lied—an independent royal commission. Who was leading the defence then? None other than the Leader of the Opposition. He was the man who defended Brian Burke. He used to come to this dispatch box and talk about his mate Brian Burke, and now that he is in office—this man who is proud of the Keating government and its standards—the Leader of the Opposition has suddenly seen a Damascan light. He now believes that standards should be higher than anything he could possibly have adhered to or supported while he was in government. He is nothing but a fraud. If he really believed in ministerial standards he would have a vacancy in his shadow ministry today. Have a look at old Senator Bolkus. There is no lack of evidence on him.Senator Bolkus is on film handing out particular documents. When he was caught on film, he tried to cover it up. Senator Parer made a disclosure and told the Prime Minister; Senator Bolkus covered it up and engaged in deceit. Senator Bolkus gave out material which was banned from publicity by court order. What is more, Senator Bolkus threatened the rights of third parties that had an interest in the return of Christopher Skase to this country. There was a damage in that case: damage to the innocent small business creditors of Christopher Skase—the damaged third party. That is what makes it totally different. Senator Bolkus is a would-be first law officer of the Crown who was dealing in unauthorised material—caught on video trying to cover it up—and damaging third parties. That is the kind of person who ought to be sacked. This is a totally nonsensical censure motion designed to cover up the Bolkus affair, designed to cover up a lack of policy and to advance the muckraking of the member for Hotham. We reject the Beazley censure and we censure Senator Bolkus instead. I move:That the question be now put.Question resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Howard's ) be agreed to.16:27:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair)85Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Costello, P. H.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, A. C.Smith, W. L. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.46Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Beddall, D. P. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.*Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. 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. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.McLachlan, I. M. Bevis, A. R.Moylan, J. E. McMullan, R. F.Somlyay, A. M. Morris, P. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion, as amended, be agreed to.16:32:00The House divided. 0Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Costello, P. H.Dondas, N. M. Downer, A. J. G.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Fischer, T. A. Forrest, J. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Howard, J. W. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Prosser, G. D. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Rocher, A. C.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C.Smith, W. L. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.0Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Beddall, D. P. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.Jones, B. O. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.Martin, S. P. McClelland, R. B.McLeay, L. B. 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. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.McLachlan, I. M. Bevis, A. R.Moylan, J. E. McMullan, R. F.Somlyay, A. M. Morris, P. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Questions to the Speaker119011901190Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, in your capacity as having responsibility for the Joint House Department, I wonder whether you might look into the appointment of the managers position of the parliamentary recreation centre. I understand that Alison Porritt, who has occupied that position as manager for four years, and who has been an employee for eight years, has been overlooked for subsequent appointment to that position.Most members and senators who regularly attend that facility believe that Alison Porritt is an excellent officer of the department. I wonder whether you might investigate whether or not there is the opportunity, perhaps, for Ms Porritt to be reconsidered for that position.1190Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will treat the question as a question on notice, and I will respond to you next week.11901190Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BISHOPSE4MackellarLPDefence Industry, Science and Personnel10—Mr Speaker, my question arises from today's question time when I noticed with some concern that, after you had ruled a particular member out of order and asked her to resume her seat, she continued to speak very loudly and at great length. My concern, Mr Speaker, is that the microphone remained on. It seems to me that it would be wise—and I wonder if you could arrange for it to be done—to arrange to have the micro phone turned off when you ask a member to take their seat.1190Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the honourable minister for her question. In fact, that step has already been taken.11901190Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is addressed to you. I draw your attention to an article at page 21 of this week's Bulletin written by David Robb.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Andrew!DT4Mr CREAN—Andrew Robb; I am sorry. They are obviously reliable sources. The assertion is made in that article that an arrangement has been made that, if you are to retain the speakership should the government be returned after the next election, that will require the National Party to give up one of its ministries. Can you confirm to the House whether such an undertaking was given by you to the Prime Minister?1190Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am interested to note the confidence the honourable member for Hotham has in the return of the government. Those events to take place after the election will be for the government that is elected, and there are obviously no commitments—nor have there been—on any position, including the leadership or any other position with any party, as they are all a matter of election. As to any position that I might have, I can assure you that there are no undertakings other than those that have been disclosed by myself and others.11901190Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I understand in the lead-up, and on your election to the position of Speaker—for which I sincerely congratulate you—you made remarks which expressed the view that you would like to see an improved quality of debate in this chamber. Has your attention been drawn to the frequency with which honourable members read speeches? Will you consider the issue with a view to encouraging more extemporaneous contributions during debate?1190Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I would be delighted if that were possible. I think we all recognise that, for right or wrong reasons, more and more members are reading speeches. I think it is a pity but, sadly, a standing order that was in place many years ago which required that far more speeches be made without referring to written material has now been deleted. Any change to the standing orders regarding the reading of speeches may well be best referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure, and I will direct your question to the committee.11911191Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, my question to you relates to an article by Alan Ramsay which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald last weekend in which the assertion was made that the Prime Minister offered you the speakership two weeks after the Constitutional Convention. Mr Speaker, did the Prime Minister offer you the speakership at that time?1191Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I responded to that question before; I said that there were discussions between the Prime Minister and me regarding the comparison between the standard of behaviour at the Constitutional Convention and the standard of behaviour in this place. I regret that it still remains the case that the standard of behaviour at the Constitutional Convention was of a far higher order. The Prime Minister invited me to assume this position when it became available after my predecessor, the honourable member for Casey, resigned his post.11911191Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, further to the matter raised by the member for Chifley—and I am speaking without notes—I would ask you, in your reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure, to examine the book recently published by Mr John Pasquarelli, The Pauline Hanson Story , which makes plain that for a long time every single word spoken in this place by the member for Oxley was written for her by a member of her staff, Mr Pasquarelli.I put it to you, for consideration by the committee, that, rightly or wrongly, the people of Oxley elected that person, Ms Hanson, to represent them and speak on their behalf in this place, not someone who is unelected. I think this is a very important document that needs to be drawn to the attention of the Standing Committee on Procedure further to the matters raised earlier. I ask you, as a former member of the New South Wales parliament, to examine their standing orders to make sure that members do make statements of their own accord in a representative and democratic fashion, instead of relying on the words of unelected people outside the parliament.1191Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—With regard to the first question raised by the honourable member, no matter how wide the responsibilities of the Standing Committee on Procedure, I am afraid it lies well outside their compass. As to the second question, I will draw the attention of the Standing Committee on Procedure to the standing orders of each other parliament in Australia, including that of the parliament of New South Wales.11911191Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—Mr Speaker, while the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Hotham are renowned—and the grandmaster champion is the member for Holt—for making tortuous introductory statements, in light of the question put by the member for Chifley, and noting that the member for Perth asked two questions today which I think a reading of the Hansard will show contained no fewer than 15 questions in the two visits he made to the dispatch box, I ask you: what will your attitude be towards multiple questions and tortuous introductory statements?1191Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—At my first Question Time, I drew the attention of all honourable members to the procedures required under standing order 144. It would be my intention as far as possible that members follow the dictates of standing order 144.Documents119116:42:001191Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I present papers on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Request for a comprehensive review of the Child Support Legislation, and that a body be formed to consider appeals of review office decisions from the member for Kalgoorlie—698 petitionersOpposition to the closure of the Heidelberg Medicare Office from the member for Jagajaga—2,534 petitionersSpecial Adjournment1192Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 23 March 1998 at 12.30 p.m., unless the Speaker fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting.Matters of Public Importance1192119210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER— I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The widespread community concern about the federal government's inadequate funding of public hospitals.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—16:43:001192Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, this government has cut back—Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the business of the day be called on.16:47:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)79Abbott, 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.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.Miles, C. G. Moore, J. C.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B. Nelson, B. J.Neville, P. C. Nugent, P. E.Pyne, C. M. Randall, D. J.Reid, N. B. Reith, P. K.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C.Smith, W. L. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.45Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.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.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. Bevis, A. R.Moylan, J. E. McMullan, R. F.Somlyay, A. M. Morris, P. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills1193The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request: NRS Levy Imposition Bill 1997 Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 Bills1193r4451193Bill returned from Main Committee with an unresolved question; certified copy of bill and schedule of unresolved question presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Unresolved question—That the bill be now read a second time. Question put: That the bill be now read a second time.16:56:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins)77Abbott, 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.Broadbent, R. E. Brough, M. T.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Downer, A. J. G. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Forrest, J. A.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P.McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R.Miles, C. G. Mutch, S. B.Nairn, G. R. Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.44Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.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. 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. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. Bevis, A. R.Moylan, J. E. McMullan, R. F.Somlyay, A. M. Morris, P. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill read a second time.Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. 1193Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—read a third time.Bills1194r3891194Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.1194Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1194r4401194Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.1194Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1194r4421194Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.1194Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1194r4431194Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.(Quorum formed)1194Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills1194r4381194Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.1194Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Committees1194119411941194Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the 17th report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate.Report—by leave—agreed to.Bills1194r4361194Debate resumed.17:09:001194Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—We had to stop this debate just before question time, and I had only one or two minutes to try to sum up the debate. I will resume by saying that I thank the colleagues from both sides who spoke on this matter. There was a range of contributions, some particularly good and some vested with emotion, as you would expect and as we see sometimes when we have discussions about child care.Fundamentally, the proposals that we are dealing with in the Child Care Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 relate to some changes to make child-care assistance easier for families. Our research conducted last year showed that the arrangements envisaged under the Child Care Payments Act would be difficult to families and services during 1998, and the changes that we have made try to address those problems.That has been met with acclaim from across the child-care sector. I am grateful for that. I particularly notice the press release from Mr Kemp from Australian child care centres, who was indicating that they were very pleased with what had been done by the government in responding to their concerns. There are other groups: the Australian Federation of Child Care Associations, the Care Bear Child Care Centre in Mornington, the Uniting Church Children's Services Forum in New South Wales, and the National Family Day Care Council in New South Wales as well and many others. All indicated that they appreciated the changes that had been made. The changes that are made have been made to the primary act—the child care bill of last year, which the Labor Party supported. Fundamentally, it addresses the needs of establishing a sustainable planning process for child care in this country.The arrangements also put in place some other additional matters which we probably should not discuss at length today, but there is a continuation and a commitment to the arrangements with regard to immunisation. Age appropriate immunisation proceedings will become a requirement for payment of both child-care assistance and child-care rebate. The link between that immunisation and child-care payments will involve some changes which are picked up in this amendment bill. All of us in this place understand the importance of furthering the need for immunisation of our young people in this country, and this is a very positive way of dealing with it.There is the issue of the 20-hour limit for non-work related child care. There is a limitation there, and that continues on in this amendment bill. I know there were some concerns about this issue, and I have indicated to the industry I certainly will listen to the views that they put to me on that particular matter. This amendment bill covers only long day care centres and the corresponding changes for other services, including outside school hours care services, will be implemented administratively.I might make some other comments about some of the remarks, and I am going to curtail my remarks because there is not much time today. There is a second reading amendment which was moved by the Labor Party, which I understand they want to divide on. Obviously I can say on behalf of the government that we reject the amendment. It is possessed of politics and does not further the debate about enhancing quality or dealing with the administrative arrangements for the changes in child care, which will start on 27 April.I might just make the point with regard to outside school hours care, because that has been the focus of some of the comment from colleagues today. It should be understood that there are about 2,000 out of school hours care services in this country. About 70,000 families have been using those services but, after 27 April, some 51,000 families will have access to child-care assistance for the first time. I think that is a fact that is escaping the attention of many people. There will be changes in administrative arrangements. The arrangements will be done primarily by the service provider, but they are provided with an amount of some $20 million to make the administrative load that much easier. They are funds that they have asked for. I have said that I will keep that under review, and I am in continual discussion with them.Out of school hours care is a very important service. It is an addition to the choice that is available to families as they pursue their work and study options to have that broader range of choice: family day care, community care, private care and outside school hours care—all very important. We want to ensure that that choice is there, and it is a meaningful choice. We also want to ensure that the assistance that we are providing to child care in this country reaches the parents. This is what has been done.The changes in outside school hours care follow a two-year study as to how best we might advantage families that are using these services. This was a study commenced by the Labor Party, as I pointed out in question time during the week, and they would have reached the same conclusion that we did: that this was socially and equitably the far better way for us to proceed to provide this assistance. I think that needs to be taken into account as well. The administrative burden that the outside school hours care providers will be feeling will be ameliorated by the extensive support that they will receive from these additional funds and the training and support from the department officers right around the country. I hope that they will make the commitment to ensure that, when we come to the change point on 27 April, we will be able to have a smooth change.We have established 1800 numbers for access by parents. I think that, when they make inquiries about their entitlements of child-care assistance and child-care rebates and about the locations of relevant services, they will find that the system is working particularly well. We have high call numbers now. I feel confident that, on testing the systems, parents will find that the child-care system we are putting in place will be more than adequate for their needs and the aspirations that they would have for their children.Finally, I indicate that the level of support for child care in this country is very extensive. We will spend in the vicinity of $5 billion over the next four years. There will be 83,000 new places, additional places, over the next four years. Nearly 600,000 children will be involved in some form of formal child care. We have had an 18 per cent increase over the last two years in outlays in child care, yet we find in this amendment a reference to forward estimates that were pre-existing. The Labor Party cannot have it both ways. They commit themselves to the need for planning, which was the feature of the primary bill and which the Labor Party in the Senate supported, but at the same time as a consequence of putting in a planning regime that limits a sustained growth in child-care centres, which is supported by the child-care industry, there obviously will be those savings to the broad range of taxpayers.I think that needs to be seen for what it is. I understand politics, and this is a political issue. We have seen circulars sent around the country by the LHMU, the union that covers some of the child-care workers. Really this is just another distortion, a scare campaign, that we have seen in other areas. I think it is regrettable. I do not think it is necessary to scare the parents of this country in the way that it has been done.The facts should be known. The service providers know the facts and they also believe that, following 27 April—and this bill gives effect to that change—the administrative arrangements will be that much easier for the child-care providers and for parents, and we can proceed with delivering better quality child care to this country. With those few remarks, I again thank all colleagues for their contribution to an interesting debate and indicate that the government opposes the second reading amendment. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Macklin's amendment) stand part of the question.17:23:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl)73Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E.Brough, M. T. Cadman, A. G.Cameron, E. H. Cameron, R. A.Causley, I. R. Charles, R. E.Cobb, M. R. Dondas, N. M.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J. *Hockey, J. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S. *McDougall, G. R. Miles, C. G.Mutch, S. B. Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B. J. Neville, P. C.Nugent, P. E. Pyne, C. M.Randall, D. J. Reid, N. B.Reith, P. K. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N. *Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. Williams, D. R.Worth, P. M.43Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L. *Griffin, A. P. *Hatton, M.Hollis, C. Jenkins, H. A.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. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W. *Sercombe, R. C. G. Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Willis, R.Wilton, G. S.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.McLachlan, I. M. Bevis, A. R.Moylan, J. E. McMullan, R. F.Somlyay, A. M. Morris, P. F.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1197Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Warwick Smith) read a third time.Adjournment1197Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.119717:26:001197Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—I am extremely disappointed to see how the Minister for the Status of Women (Mrs Moylan) is tackling her portfolio. I imagine she was disappointed at her demotion in the ministry. After all, she had done what was asked of her. She was the minister responsible for cutting $800 million from child care. She was the minister responsible for cutting $500 million from aged care. For a government driven by the dollar bottom line this should have been an applauded outcome. At least we thought that with her appointment as Minister for the Status of Women some consideration would finally be given by this government to the concerns of Australian women and that she might even realise what her actions in child care and aged care have meant to Australian women given that appointment.What do we see? Since parliament has resumed this year this minister has taken at least two questions I can recall from her own side seeking advice on the government's initiatives that have assisted Australian women. All she has done in answering those questions is attack the Labor Party and refer to some preselection process over which the minister has somehow taken offence. I take this opportunity to inform the minister, if she is so offended by what we happen to be doing in our preselection process, about six safe seats. The new candidates are: Lalor, Julia Gillard; Gellibrand, Nicola Roxon; Shortland, Jill Hall; Charlton, Kelly Hoare; Fowler, Julia Irwin; and Sydney, Tanya Plebicek.A lot has happened since this government took office which has affected Australian women. There is much this minister should be concerned about and of far more importance than the personal offence she seems to have taken to the ALP preselection process. Since the Howard government came to power in 1996, Australian women have found it harder to find jobs, harder to get wage increases, harder to pay for child care, harder to pay for health care, harder to pay for their children's education and harder to pay for aged care.It is Australian women who have paid the ultimate price for the Howard government's deep cut to health, education and community services. The message from the Howard government to Australian women is clear. When it comes to balancing work and family responsibilities you are on your own.In the work area, over 300,000 women are currently unemployed and 86,000 of these have been unemployed for over one year. Less than 30,000 new jobs have been created for women since the government came to power. I asked a question in the House yesterday about the 50,000 married women who will be denied free access to employment services because of this government.In the pay packet the gap between what men and women earn is widening. Child-care costs have risen as much as $20 a week in some centres to make up for the $820 million this government has ripped out of that system. The Prime Minister has increased the maximum cost of a prescription for families from $17.40 to $20. For a pensioner that price has gone from $2.70 to $3.20.Fees for university have more than doubled under this government. University places have been cut by 21,000. Now that young people, those who can afford it, can buy their way into university the principle of merit has been thrown out the window and women attempting to get benefit from education expansion in the 1980s are now denied it.In nursing homes, women live longer than men and are more likely to need that sort of care. Under the Howard government, all nursing home patients with assets of over $22,500, including the family home, will have to pay an annual fee of up to $4,380 a year for five years. Should families decide that they cannot afford this nursing home fiasco, it is usually the woman in the family who takes on that caring role. Women are really doing it tough under Howard. Most Australian families rely on two incomes to make ends meet. When jobs cannot be found or child- care costs are simply too high, it is the family income that suffers and the women have to find a way to heal that. These issues urgently need the attention of the Minister for the Status of Women. I suggest very strongly that she turn her attention to them accordingly.119817:31:001198Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—I hope that the member for Chifley (Mr Price) does not object: I actually gave a bit of thought to this adjournment speech and wrote a few notes. Now that the emotion is starting to settle down in relation to the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras that is held in Sydney, I would like to make a few comments about it. I confess to not pulling on my orange lycra shorts to go to the mardi gras.I would like to preface what I have to say, though, by making a couple of serious remarks. My mother lost one of her two sons to AIDS. She did so having done everything she could to instil in both her sons a deeply imbued sense of what was right and wrong. Such is the nature of society that my brother lived with this virus for six years until, in 1990, he summoned the courage to first let me know of his problem and then his parents. It was in that context that a couple of months ago, like most members of the New South Wales community, I became aware of the fact that the police, at that stage at least, had been advised that they would be able to march in the mardi gras and to do so in uniform, and that they would be paid. Subsequently, of course, that decision was changed.There are a couple of points that need to be made. I think that society, in an environment where we are not leading up to the mardi gras, needs to have some serious and perhaps sober discussion about what this event is really all about. I find it a near impossible task to teach my own children what the difference is between what is right and what is wrong. I question whether it is made any easier by having gay and lesbian men and women making quite hurtful parodies of some of the most caring groups in the community—the Sisters of Charity for one—and the state appearing to endorse this kind of behaviour, which under most circumstances we would not accept, whatever the sexuality of the participants. We see politicians from all political parties falling over one another to endorse the mardi gras, to embrace and encourage the gay vote or the gay lobby, and this is seen to be an end which justifies the means.I question whether that is the right thing for us to be doing. As parents—and I am one of them—struggle to explain the difference between what is right and wrong to children in their early teens, I ask: how is this near impossible task assisted in any way by the state appearing to condone a form of behaviour that most of us find difficult to understand, let alone tolerate?At issue, to me at least, is not the sexuality of the participants—it has nothing to do with that—but the hurtful parodies of some of the most caring and sincere groups in the community, public nakedness that borders on indecency, and the performance of acts that few adults could explain to the inquiring minds of children. Were this a dignified parade to protest the cruel injustices and prejudice faced in day to day life by homosexual people, I would be prepared to not only join it but to lead it. In that regard, I must say that I have considerable sympathy for what I understand will be a private member's motion to be brought on by the member for Grayndler (Mr Albanese) in relation to superannuation entitlements for same sex couples.Instead—to me at least—the gay mardi gras stands alongside gambling, drug use, escalating suicide rates, and debates about euthanasia and race, as further evidence of a society that is seriously failing. There is in the end a difference between right and wrong. Homosexual people are our brothers and sisters, our aunts and uncles, our sons and daughters, and some are even parents, and they should be able to live in a society that is free of intolerance, persecution and hatred.Yet they should also understand and respect a societal view that any moral and economic priority should dictate that police and—dare I say—politicians and others who profess to lead should be anywhere other than at a parade such as the mardi gras. I realise that I am probably alienating some of my constitu ents and many others who will now make me a parody and a subject of abuse. But I believe in what I have said and I think that there is a time that many of us who profess to lead stood up and said, `Hang on, why don't you hose yourselves down a bit and behave in a different way?'119917:36:001199Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I rise this evening to present this extremely disturbing issue surrounding the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which dates back to 1980. One of my constituents, Maria Acanfora, migrated to Australia from Italy in 1974 as a 10-year-old girl. She is being harassed and pursued by her Italian husband via the state central authority nominated under the terms of the convention—in this case the Victorian Department of Human Services.Maria, an Australian citizen, resident in Australia for more than 20 years, left Australia for a holiday to Italy in 1994 where she met an Italian man whom she decided to marry. They were married in Italy on 5 May 1994. They lived in Bologna in Italy until July 1995 when they moved to the Honduras. Their son, Francesco, was born there on 12 October 1995. They both returned to Australia in December 1995, then went back to Bologna in February 1996. Unable to find work in Italy, the couple returned to Australia in November 1996 to start up business and to settle in Australia permanently. The marriage broke down.In order to stop her husband carrying out his threat of taking their very young son back to Italy, Ms Acanfora took out a court order on 17 March, which was served on the husband on 18 March 1997. Her husband did not attend the hearing, scheduled for 19 March; instead, he packed his bags and went back to Italy. Between 19 March 1997 and 2 December, the only contact attempted with the child by the father was three faxes—which was pretty hopeful given that the child was between 17 months old and two years old during this time and therefore not able to read. On 1 December last year, an ex parte writ under the Family Law (Child Abduction Conventions) Regulations applying to have the child returned to Italy was issued in the Family Court of Australia for hearing. Why it was served and considered ex parte is a mystery to me, as the respondent, Ms Acanfora, was quite readily contactable. She was in fact living in the home that she had always lived in and, indeed, the home that she had lived in with her husband during their time together in Australia. She was so easily contactable that the next day, 2 December, she was visited at her place of residence by three Federal Police officers and two social workers, and both the mother and child were taken to court. Her passports were retained until the outcome of the hearing, and the child is still residing with her in the family home.My concern about this issue is that, apparently, according to the convention, the taxpayer is to pay the legal expenses for the father, who is living in Italy, yet the expenses of Ms Acanfora, who is my constituent and an Australian citizen, will not be picked up by anybody. She has applied for and has been denied legal aid.I am also most concerned that the initial hearing was heard and held ex parte for no legitimate reason as the mother was directly contactable. I do not believe this is an appropriate way for Australian citizens to have access to the law and for their rights to be heard. I believe that ex parte hearings should be only in extreme circumstances, where someone flees the country to avoid justice and so on. They should not be for a case like this where she was quite easy to find.This is a misuse of a convention that was designed honourably and with good intent to protect the lives of abducted children across international boundaries. It would appear in this case, however, to be the means by which an Australian citizen of longstanding is not being given fair treatment. You have to question the sense of a convention that provides the international challenger with the might of free legal representation while an Australian citizen gets none. There seems to me to be something quite wrong about this. I will just refer to the latest letter that she has received from Victoria Legal Aid. It states:Your matter does not come under the Family Law Act, the Child Support (Assessment) Act or the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act.Therefore, she cannot receive legal aid. What we appear to have is a situation where foreign nationals can pursue family law matters with the assistance of legal aid but we do not have legal aid for Australian citizens.I also add that it is highly doubtful that the son should be regarded as an Italian citizen, given that he was born in the Honduras and his next place of residence for a considerable time was Australia. There seems to me to be some very unsatisfactory features about this case which warrant further consideration.120017:40:001200Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I would like to point out tonight that Labor's newest recruit, Cheryl Kernot, intends to be in my electorate next Monday and Tuesday. I would like to take this opportunity to point out a number of things about the would-be member for Dickson, who I believe has no hope of winning. The people of Swan should know about this pin-up girl from the ALP. Laurie Oakes described her as a `demo-rat'. I thought the Labor Party did not like rats, but she is described well and truly in this arena—I do not have notes here, Mr Speaker, just a few points—as a `demo-rat'.Can you believe her? Can you believe anything that Cheryl Kernot says? What I want to say is that, during the South Australian election campaign, she was running around saying, `You've got to support the Democrats, they're the only party that will keep the bastards honest,' and this sort of thing. We know that is the mantra that she was using. But what did she do one week later? After all those election ads, et cetera, she joined the Labor Party. Arm in arm, she joined the Labor Party. Can you honestly believe this woman? She misled the South Australian people. She misled the Australian people.9V5PYNEMr Pyne—Not for the first time.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—Absolutely, it was not for the first time.8V5WORTHMs Worth—And only 30 people turned up to hear her speak in Adelaide.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—Yes. She is a dishonest person. I must move on because I have a fair bit to say about this duplicitous, disingenuous person called Cheryl Kernot. I would like to point out also that this person has said she is going to shift into the electorate of Dickson. She has not shifted into the electorate of Dickson. She has not bought a house there. She went to rent a house and a truck went through it, so then she said she was off to rent somewhere else.My information is that she may have rented a place there, but she does not live there. I am reliably informed that she lives in an inner city penthouse in Brisbane called Admiralty Towers. This is a great commitment to the people of Dickson, isn't it? She will go and be their member, but she will not live in their electorate. She is not going to live in a nice little house in the electorate; she is going to live in a penthouse.This is the sort of person who would represent the workers of Australia, according to the Labor Party. This is the sort of disingenuous, dishonest behaviour that you are getting from a would-be Labor Party member of parliament. She is a member of the Labor Party, but she is certainly not a member of parliament and, in my opinion, she will not get that four per cent—she's got Buckley's.Let us also talk about another one of her great qualities—because you cannot believe her. Where is her loyalty? She certainly had no loyalty to her staff. When she went, what did she do? She did not tell them. She told the Labor Party. She sat around with Gareth, Kim and these sorts of people telling them that she loved them, wanted to join them and wanted to nurture them. But her own staff found out via the media. Not only that, one of her staff, I am told, was lying on the beach on maternity leave and she was shocked because she found out that the job she intended to return to was not there any more. That was the way she found out. I also happen to know that some of these people have mortgages to pay—but there was no job the next day. They have mortgages to pay. They have feelings. They had been loyal to her, and she had not returned the loyalty.How about her loyalty to the ALP? She went down to the conference in Hobart. She claimed compliments for the resurrection of the ALP. She was this marvellous person who she wanted to hold up in shining light as the person who had got the ALP resurrected in the polls, but Kim and the heavies came in and told her that she could not do that.I was a teacher and I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that if I had had an affair with someone 10 years younger than me I would have been in trouble. I can tell you it should apply equally, because it seems to be okay for a female to have an affair with a younger person but for a male it is taboo. Does this affection extend to the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans), we often wonder. Is she honest? She is about as honest as Christopher Skase and Nick Bolkus, she is about as loyal as Benedict Arnold and she has the morals of an alley cat on heat. The people of Swan and Dickson should be aware of the real Cheryl Kernot and reject her. (Time expired)120117:45:001201Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to put on record my disappointment and anger on behalf of my constituents in Sydenham in Sydney. When Mark Vaile became the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, to his credit, he visited my electorate on 31 October 1997—something that his predecessor, John Sharp, had failed to do, despite a number of promises—to look first-hand at the impact the airport noise issue was having in the area closest to Sydney airport.During that visit, we walked around with Joe Hockey, the chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum; Barry Cotter, the Mayor of Marrickville; and other community representatives. We wanted to show the minister first-hand what the issues were and how they needed to be resolved. Unfortunately, just before parliament came back, we received replies from the minister which were all in the negative.On the issue of small businesses in Sydenham, as the House would be aware, as a result of the decision to build the third runway a whole section of Sydenham was deemed to be unliveable in—that is, above 40 ANEF. Some 151 houses were bought and demolished in that area. This had an effect on the local shopping centre, not surprisingly. Of the 17 businesses there, a majority have closed. It is not surprising that when you take away the houses from a community the local paper shop, milk bar, takeaway, florist, and hardware store are forced to close. That was a direct result of a decision of government.While other people closest to the airport were eligible for insulation, these small business owners got exactly zero. The shops were not insulated, yet many of the shopkeepers live above their shops. These are working people, mainly of migrant backgrounds, who settled in Australia and have worked hard to build up their businesses and support their families. Those businesses are today not worth a red cent. I believe that they have a legitimate claim for compensation, especially from a government that says that it cares about small business.These people got nothing from the minister. He did not even bother to write back to them. Instead, they got a letter through the Chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum which said that, while the minister had some sympathy for them, he was not able to support their claim for compensation. Sympathy will not feed the children of those hardworking families. The Sydney Airport Community Forum is a government appointed body which, in spite of being stacked with representatives from the North Shore of Sydney, has carried resolutions unanimously supporting the demands of these people. People like Joe Hockey, the member for Lowe (Mr Zammit), state Liberal members and Liberal mayors, people like Kerry Chikarovski and others have all supported these claims, yet the government says that it is not going to deliver on it. That is a disgrace.We also visited weatherboard houses which had been insulated. That insulation had had a minimal impact on noise reduction. Spending $47,000 insulating the walls of weatherboard houses is a complete waste of money. The government should have just handed over a cheque. We had a plan for the voluntary acquisition of those homes—a plan which was once again unanimously supported by the Sydney Airport Community Forum. Once again, that unanimous support meant nothing when it came to the minister's decision.It is a very poor performance indeed from the minister when government members are saying, `You've got a case. We agree with you unanimously. We think this is an issue of justice,' but the government will not pay a minimal amount of money, an amount which would not have come out of taxation revenue but from the airport tax on each ticket. These people deserve better. (Time expired)120217:50:001202Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonLP10—It is a mark of a mature politician that he has the sensitivity and wisdom to admit an error of judgment, a lack of understanding and a failure to properly read a situation. Many great politicians have demonstrated these qualities. They have recognised mistakes. They have said sorry. They have responded. Political life is a difficult and complex one. Some would say that modern political life is almost unbearable, with its constant pressures from either side of an issue.However, it is important to remember that the people of Australia, the ordinary people, are our ultimate masters—not political parties, not unelected officials, not pollsters, not the politically correct elite and not the juste milieu who seem to dictate what we are supposed to say, do and act upon. That is why we must be strong in this game—strong enough to stand up to those who purport to tell us what to do, especially some of the revolting media outlets which want to run the country from an office in New York or some other remote locality.I could not help but be moved by a letter to the Sydney Daily Telegraph which was published on 10 March 1998. It is critical of the government, but I believe that we should all listen to it, no matter what side of politics we are on. It says:Mr Howard's political agenda is further evidence of how out of touch he is with those who go through the pain of divorce and settlement. I started my superannuation fund before I was married. During my divorce settlement I was placed in the position of closing down a business or handing the business over in exchange for keeping my superannuation.Selling the business as part of my divorce settlement would have benefited me little. Handing this over to my ex-wife saved my superannuation, it kept her self-employed and while it operates, it provides a great livelihood. My superannuation left something for me to pass on for our son.John Howard may know the price of milk but does he know the anguish that a father also goes through when a marriage ends?It is not only the woman who has to endure this trauma. Is he aware that male rights for joint custody is still a major battle for some?Is he aware of how difficult it is to re-establish one's life when 18 per cent of your gross income—for one child—goes towards maintenance? My divorce settlement left me the equivalent of what I started with before my 10 years of marriage.If we have to give up our superannuation will this enable males the same rights in divorce hearings? Will males be entitled to an ex-wife's superannuation? Let's change the Family Law court system, before we create more turmoil in divorce settlements.I have watched our son grow, but I have had limited opportunities at tucking him into bed every night and picking him up and taking him to school or holding him in my arms when he is sick.I would give up my superannuation tomorrow for the chance to be with my son.Name and address supplied but withheld for legal reasonsThose words moved me. Not only do they echo the pain of my constituents but also they stir inner personal experience. Last Sunday I saw my nine-year-old son walking down the street. I had not seen him for a year—a separation not caused by a deliberate choice of mine. As I spoke to him and adjusted my eyes to the fact of the changes and his growth, the pain of loss was indescribable.I feel for the writer who understandably withheld his name for legal reasons. I have seen the shocking excesses of the Child Support Agency that leaves people broken, penniless and suicidal, and the failure of the Family Law Act to address marital breakdown. I listen daily to my constituents and to many others from all over Australia who have been blighted by the iniquitous system.Despite the heading in the Sydney Morning Herald after the government's announcement, women will not win. Dividing people means no winners but bitter losers. Neither money nor slogans can ameliorate the heartache and pain of separation and alienation from your kids and the loneliness.My electorate is demanding fairness in the family law system and major changes to the Child Support Agency and I am listening to it. Nothing will deter me from doing my duty and representing my constituents.120317:54:001203Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to speak about the Howard government's lack of performance on the second anniversary of its election with respect to jobs. In doing so, I also refer in passing to a media release by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs today which states:The Government's policies have laid the foundation for continued jobs growth this year.It then refers in passing to the participation rate:The participation rate was steady at 63.2%.It is appropriate that we place the real facts on record this evening, and what a terrible record this government's performance is on the jobs front. In doing so, I refer to the Prime Minister's statement exactly two years ago. This is what he had to say on the eve of the last federal election at the National Press Club:I will be a very disappointed man if I have not made very serious inroads into the level of youth unemployment in this country because I would like to see our performance in that area as being the mark of what we have been able to do as a government.Two years on, I would have thought that there is something to talk about this afternoon. Where are we two years on? It is interesting to note, on the second anniversary of the election of the Howard government, on the second anniversary of what I suppose was a core promise—I doubt it is a core promise any more—youth unemployment remains static at 26.4 per cent. I suppose he will be revising a few other promises as we move towards the next election: the concepts of core and non-core according to performance and non-performance.Let us deal with the comparison of the first two years of this government on the jobs front with the last two years of Labor in government, the most readily available comparison as to performance. Let us deal firstly with the issue of total jobs growth. There are a range of indicators that we can consider this afternoon. Concerning total jobs growth, John Howard, the Prime Minister of Australia, in his first 24 months of government has achieved 193,100 jobs. In their last 24 months, the Labor Party achieved 521,100 jobs.I now go to the issue of full-time jobs growth. John Howard in his first 24 months as Prime Minister: 75,700—a staggering performance. The Labor Party in its last 24 months: 322,700. I would hate to think what he was achieving if the jobs growth was not on target at this point in time. Part-time jobs growth: 117,400—a real achievement for John Howard. Labor's part-time jobs growth in the last 24 months: 198,400.Then we go to the staggering reduction in unemployment that has been achieved in John Howard's first two years of government: 0.3 per cent. Youth unemployment is stuck at a national level, the overall level of unemployment is down 0.3 per cent. What did Labor achieve in our last 24 months? Not a bad result: a reduction of two per cent.Now we go to the participation rate. In many ways the participation rate is, in people's minds, a statement of their view or their sense of confidence in their capacity to get a job based on the performance of the economy and the performance of the government. It is interesting to note that people have actually given up hope of finding a job. The participation rate has dropped in the two years from 63.8 per cent to 63.2 per cent. I suppose he has achieved something. He has driven men and women out of the work force and placed barriers especially in the face of women who want to make a contribution to the development of Australia and, in so doing, try to secure and create better opportunities for their families in the future.I believe that the Prime Minister is trying to hide these stark figures of his fudge on the employment front. He is trying to point the finger at the underprivileged in the Australian community and he stands condemned this afternoon for his failure. Worse still, the changes in the delivery of employment services is an absolute disgrace. To deny married women whose husbands are working, to deny the spouses of defence personnel an opportunity to get a job, to deny young people who are not on benefits but seeking to pursue training, be it in TAFE or universities, the opportunity to use the old CES to get a job—a leg up the ladder—is an absolute disgrace.This government is not committed to jobs and job security. Its first two years of a lack of performance show that. On all the indicators—full-time jobs growth, part-time jobs growth—the question of what you do with respect to the participation rate and youth employment are an absolute failure and disgrace. (Time expired)120417:59:001204Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Given the late hour, I put my prepared text to one side and take this opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment and elevation to the position of Speaker. I am sure that you will continue to hold that office in the very good light in which it has been held in the last two weeks and show the opposition—LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—He hasn't got a vote in your caucus.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE—how they could perhaps mend their ways, particularly the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson) who is a very rowdy and vocal member of the House.18:00:001204House adjourned at 6.00 p.m. until Monday, 23 March 1998, at 12.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.Notices1204The following notices were given:Mr Fitzgibbon to move:That this House condemns the Howard Government for undermining Medicare by (a) slashing federal funding for public hospitals and (b) forcing general practitioners to abandon bulk-billing services by squeezing Medicare rebates.Mr Andren to move:That the Carrier Licence Conditions (Vodafone Pty Limited) Declaration 1997 (Amendment No. 1 of 1997), made under subsection 63(5) of the Telecommunications Act 1997, be disallowed.Mr Sawford to move:That this House:(1) notes that the current dispute between Patrick's Stevedoring Company and the Maritime Union of Australia is not in the national interest; and(2) calls upon the Government to urgently bring together all the players on the Australian waterfront, namely exporters and importers, stevedoring companies, the Maritime Union of Australia, the shipping companies and the port authorities to constructively and collaboratively recommend actions required to achieve world's best practice.Documents1205The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 12 March 1998:Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 31, 32.Coarse Grains Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 28.Employment Services Act—Employment Services (Case Management Documents) Determination 1998 No. 1.Export Control Act—Export Control (Orders) Regulations—Orders—Export Meat 1998 No. 1.Prescribed Goods (General) 1998 No. 1.Extradition Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 27.Judges' Pensions Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 25.Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 26.National Residue Survey Administration Act and National Residue Survey (Aquatic Animal Export) Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 29.Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act and National Residue Survey (Aquatic Animal Export) Levy Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 30.Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. SESROB10, SESROB11, SESROB12, SESROB13, SESROB14, SESROB15, SESROB16, SESROB17, SESROB18, SESROB19.Taxation Administration Act—Determination 1998 No. TD4.1998-03-12Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members1206120609:40:001206Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—In last year's federal budget the government announced a new $16 million immunisation program for combating rising levels of hepatitis B in Australia. The program was designed to be delivered to all prepubescent school children. In the budget papers, the government stated:Vaccinations are normally delivered to adolescents through GPs and health clinics. The level of coverage of the target group would be expected to be low if these were the only delivery mechanisms used as adolescents do not use these services frequently.This measure provides specific funding for the delivery of HBV in the school setting, which is expected to result in better rates of immunisation. It will involve the Commonwealth working with the states . . . and the states being responsible for the delivery programme as well as the provision of additional funding.That is what they told us they were going to do, and then the federal Minister for Health (Dr Wooldridge) bathed in the publicity about his new immunisation program.The Victorian state government has advertised the scheme as being available in all schools. They even had glossy letters and leaflets and a web page to tell us about the scheme and how wonderful the government was. It is a shame they could not find the money to pay for the injections for the kids.What the state government did was to pass the cost on to local councils. The councils had to go to the schools to immunise the kids but they were not given enough money to run the scheme. Staff at the city of Casey, for example, claim that they have been unable to secure sufficient funding to vaccinate kids at their schools. I have been informed that the council was going to be short-changed $27,000 by the state and federal governments if it implemented the scheme the way the governments wanted it to be done. Casey claims it does not have that amount of money just lying around. So, there are now 2,000 kids whose only option is to attend the Casey Council after school hours health centre to get the three shots they need to be protected against hepatitis B.That delivery mechanism was rejected by the federal government. They even say in their budget papers that it is not good enough. School based immunisation is the only place where you get a high enough level of immunisation. But it is not just the 2,000 kids in Casey who will suffer, it is the whole immunisation program. The government has told us it is committed to getting immunisation rates to 90 per cent. This is another empty promise. When it has come to the crunch, Dr Wooldridge has failed to find the money to deliver on his promises to the kids of Australia.The Municipal Association of Australia and the Australian Local Government Association have informed me that there is growing disquiet amongst many councils about the way governments are funding immunisation programs. Councils are being forced to carry the high cost of federal and state government programs of immunisation.Victoria is the first state to implement the hepatitis B immunisation of school children program. I sincerely hope that the other states are not facing the same sorts of funding problems as Victoria is facing.120709:43:001207Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Today I rise to congratulate the University of the Third Age in Redcliffe on its 10th anniversary and say that I had the extreme pleasure of enjoying the celebrations there with the students on Saturday of last week in my electorate of Petrie.The University of the Third Age provides an opportunity for older people to learn new skills and to learn in a motivated environment. The people who were there seemed to have an incredible new lease of life. They were older members of our community and they had an incredible hunger to learn and a desire to be there. It was just wonderful to be enriched by their motivation and their high spirits.Whether it is astrology, the Internet or needlework, the members and those who participate in these courses were passionate about this self-help approach to learning. They have taken to this concept with both hands and are using their retirement as a kick-start to learn new skills, and many of them have rejuvenated former skills. For example, the Internet is now not seen as confusing or too technical for older people but rather it is seen as a very interactive learning tool, and many of them have embraced it wholeheartedly.The first University of the Third Age was founded in Toulouse, France, in 1972, and the first campus in Australia was established in Melbourne in 1984. The University of the Third Age in Redcliffe was founded by a remarkable woman, Olive McKee, way back in 1987, and it was incorporated in 1988.Some 500 people are enrolled in courses at the University at the moment and members of the Redcliffe U3A come from a number of areas in Brisbane, including the suburbs of Bracken Ridge, Sandgate, Deagon, Brighton, Lawnton, places like Deception Bay, Burpengary and in fact from all over the Redcliffe Peninsula. Each University of the Third Age determines its own curriculum and its demand in the use of its skill. It uses a great number of unpaid tutors and they come from all walks of life. They provide tutorials, seminars and workshops for the members of the university. In fact it is not uncommon for a teacher in one class to be a student in another. I had the pleasure of meeting people from some outstanding academic backgrounds the other day.One of the qualities of the Redcliffe University of the Third Age is that it does not rest on its laurels. It is particularly grateful for the support given by the Redcliffe Library, local newspapers and the local radio station 99FM and it also contributes and provides valuable assistance to the local cardiac rehabilitation unit. With the slogan of `Learning for the joy of learning', the members have the right frame of mind and join together to share experiences, skills and learning.I was greatly honoured to be with the executive and the members of the University of the Third Age and I particularly was pleased to join them for their celebrations last Saturday. I wish them great success and I wish them well for all their endeavours in the future.120709:46:001207Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—In the same fortnight in which Australian attention has been attracted by Mr Roude—the successful tenderer whose total ability to provide employment help to people in this country seems not to be the availability of computers, not the availability of any previous background experience, but the fact that he could buy a few books on management for the television when they came to interview him—the highly respected and fairly high profile Greater Western Sydney Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry wrote to 10 members of this federal parliament with a three-page indictment of this government's processes in regard to job help. It is worth noting the questions they raised about the way in which various providers were told in advance that they would be successful, a process demoralising for other companies. As I say, it is a three-page indictment.I want to raise another issue from that period, that is, the government's preoccupation with certain ideological requirements rather than good practice and good government. That is the question of adult migrant English in this country. In New South Wales we had it tendered out in five separate regions. What has occurred is that this 50-year-old organisation—with a record in regard to curriculum development; with a record in the provision of counselling to refugees and humanitarian entrants to this country; and with a reputation for having trained psychologists and teachers to help these people—has disappeared in three of the New South Wales regions. Quite frankly this government talks about choice; it says it is widening choice for people. The fact of life is that in most of Sydney now you have to travel 20 kilometres for an alternative. There is no alternative in Western Sydney to the recently established private provider, which to my knowledge has no trained teachers. Quite frankly the bottom line here is the government's desire to reduce 60 to 65 per cent of funding in this area. Unemployment, particularly in the municipality of my electorate, far exceeds the national average because of the reality that people are recent arrivals and lack English. This organisation that has provided this service over five decades is basically going to collapse. I put on record the effort by the local community from people of all political persuasions two years ago. There were massive public meetings and council resolutions, et cetera against this decision.I want to note the efforts of the Fairfield Migrant Inter-Agency Association. The points they make about the collapse of this organisation include the failure to recognise long-term knowledge and understanding of migrants, a committed and extensive service working with DIMA clients, bilingual assistance, responsiveness to client needs and the ability to provide flexible programs. All these things are going out the door. All these people that depend on the free provision of English in this country for their job success in the future are being told that there is only one alternative now, a newcomer on the block with no previous experience, and that they have to travel 20 kilometres if they want to get an alternative to that option.120809:49:001208Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS5M6Northern TerritoryCLP10—This morning I take the opportunity to rise and speak about the late Roger Shipton.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—He was a person of very high principles.5M6Dondas, Nick, MPMr DONDAS—Mr Deputy Speaker, as the member for Cowper, I am quite sure that you would join with me this morning in paying a tribute to Roger, who was a parliamentary colleague of yours for a number of years. Roger was first elected to the federal parliament in 1975 and retired in 1990. During that period, I had met him in the Northern Territory a number of times. He was a frequent visitor to the Northern Territory. He was a great bloke. He also took his work in parliament very seriously. On the number of times that he visited the Territory, he really visited it to find out as much as he could about Aboriginal affairs, because he was on that committee for a number of years.While in parliament, he was an opposition spokesman on Aboriginal affairs from 1984 to 1985. That gave me the opportunity of meeting Roger. He was a frequent visitor. The last time I saw him in the Northern Territory was at a function in August last year with his wife, Susie. He looked in very good health. I then had the good fortune of seeing him again in Melbourne in November. I was quite surprised when he was tragically taken in January of this year.Roger was awarded a medal of the Order of Australia in 1991 for his services to politics. As you move around the federal parliament and ask people whether they knew Roger Shipton, everybody will say he really was a good bloke. The honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) interjected at the beginning of my remarks to say what a nice bloke he was. His wife, Susie and his son, James, and his daughter, Kate, will certainly miss him. I would also like to say that the people that he worked with at Philip Morris will certainly miss him as well because they enjoyed the spirit of cooperation that he had with them.I often used to bump into him in the corridors of the parliament here and, from time to time, we had the opportunity of having a cup of coffee. He will be sadly missed. He was a great bloke. I would like to say once more I offer my condolences to his wife, Susie, and to his family.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the Honourable Member for the Northern Territory for associating me with his remarks about my friend, the late Roger Shipton.120909:52:001209Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Three times within the past seven days I have raised the deplorable climate of industrial relations which is beginning to engulf this nation. There is an undeniable climate of fear, intimidation, confrontation, division and harassment being actively promoted by this government. This government, through its workplace relations legislation, is harbouring bosses who want to mug workers. The workplace relations legislation actively works against the workers and the trade unions workers choose to represent their interests.On Monday I outlined a dispute at the New South Wales grain cooperative pivot facility at Port Kembla in some detail. I do not propose to repeat those remarks, except to say that the rock solid guarantee legislation has failed them.I also raised an allegation that a woman had appeared at the picket line on numerous occasions during the six-week dispute. She was involved in the video and other surveillance of activities there. This mystery woman has boasted about her history as a private detective. She boasted about stalking claimants for workers compensation. She boasted about having been involved in the video surveillance of activities at the Hunter Valley Rio Tinto No. 1 mine picket. She also claimed to have been engaged in a contract with a government department to spy on people who were legitimately protesting their inexcusable sacking by a ruthless picket management.The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith), in response to a question from me in question time on Tuesday, demanded of me that I apologise to the Office of the Employment Advocate. I do not express regret for raising this issue with the minister. This is an important matter. It cannot be brushed aside.I reveal today, through detective work of my own, that the woman who slunk around the picket line at Port Kembla, spying on sacked workers and their supporters as late as Monday, is a Ms Angela Dahm. I am informed that she has been employed directly or indirectly by Rio Tinto. Ms Dahm has a great deal of explaining to do. She must explain why she boasted about having been engaged in a contract to undertake video surveillance of picketers by a government department. She must also explain what she intended to do with this video surveillance. She must explain how much taxpayers' money she has been paid, by whom, by which government department and for what purpose. The whole issue has a rather putrid smell about it. I strongly suspect that this is the Illawarra's own Dubai scandal. There are questions I have put on the record and there are questions I expect answers to.In two years, this government has turned a century of industrial relations on its head. The only thing I deeply regret is that 1998 is appearing no different from 1898. It is a scandal and I will pursue this.121009:55:001210Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I rise today to talk about a frustrating and disheartening plight faced by many in our veterans community, particularly the Vietnam veterans. A number of them have gone through what they have described to me as their biggest battle: working with the Department of Veterans' Affairs to secure TPI benefits.Having done that, they then approach their insurance companies and, under the terms of their superannuation policies—the death and disability provisions—they make an application to see whether that disability payment can be made. I remind those members present that, in most insurance companies, the disability provisions relate to an `incapacity to such an extent as to render the person unlikely to ever engage in or work for reward in any occupation or work for which he is reasonably qualified.' That sits alongside the TPI definition, which is very similar but talks about an incapacity, because of war caused injury or disease, that prevents a person from continuing to undertake remunerative work that he or she was undertaking, thus suffering loss of salary and the like.The definitions are very similar but, in practice, the experience of the veterans is quite different. After going through the process with the Department of Veterans' Affairs to exhaustively examine their eligibility for a TPI entitlement, they then approach their superannuation fund. A superannuation fund or insurer arbitrarily makes a decision, often having only ever inspected or assessed the veteran for one 40-minute interview, that the veteran is capable of working, thus denying the veteran access to that disability element under their superannuation policy.It is extraordinarily disheartening for veterans, having gone through the exhaustive DVA processes, to have an insurance company engage psychiatrists or doctors to assess them, at one interview, and tell them that all the assessments that the Department of Veterans' Affairs have arrived at are wrong, that they are indeed capable of working, and that the DVA conclusion is inaccurate. I would hasten to suggest that this may have more to do with the insurer or superannuation company being a little less prepared to pay out on the superannuation policies held by the veterans than with a very genuine assessment of their physical condition.I call upon the government to work with the ISC, the Insurance and Superannuation Commission, to reconcile the definitions of a person's incapacity to work; so that the veteran knows that, once they have gone through the Department of Veterans' Affairs process, it is almost automatic that the superannuation companies will take account of that exhaustive assessment and indeed share the conclusion that the person is incapable of continuing to work, thus granting them the disability payment under their superannuation insurance policy.I would like to briefly mention and acknowledge the excellent work of the Frankston, Seaford and Mornington RSLs and, in particular, their welfare officers, who keep me well briefed on what is being experienced by the veterans within my community. I will continue to work for their interests.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with sessional order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills1211r4451211Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.10:58:001211Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—In the absence of the honourable member for Banks (Mr Melham), I will go ahead of him. He may well arrive before this debate is concluded.The Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] is a very important piece of government legislation. The government has a clear mandate for the changes introduced and included in the bill, as it was part of coalition policy prior to the last election. In our policies on law and justice and a new deal for small business, we said that the government would introduce these provisions. Consequently, this bill has a clear and unequivocal mandate from the Australian people.The bill seeks to reform the processes for making, publication, scrutiny and, most importantly, sunsetting of Commonwealth legislation. The bill acts in a gatekeeper role by preventing the unchecked proliferation of delegated legislation. We all know, as members of parliament, how frustrating it is for our constituents when they come to us, time and time again, complaining about regulations which are outdated and yet which remain in force and effective.This bill has a long history, going all the way back to 1994 to the time of the former Labor government. The former government introduced what was then called the Legislative Instruments Bill 1994 and, owing to the election in 1996, it simply did not pass. It lapsed and consequently this government has introduced this later piece of legislation.I am pleased the honourable member for Banks has arrived, because he was the chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I can see Ms Middlebrook next to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and she was the secretary of the committee at that time.Our committee was privileged to have referred to it the Legislative Instruments Bill 1994 for consideration. We looked at it very closely, as a committee; we believed that it was important; and I think it is sad and tragic that the Labor Party—and the Democrats—in the other place, represented in this place by the honourable member for Banks, have decided to overturn what was strong support for the principles outlined in this bill.As I said, the chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in the last parliament was the honourable member for Banks, and I must say that he was a particularly good chairman at that time. The recommendations that the committee brought forward in its report are largely those included in this legislation, and included amongst those recommendations is one that there should be a sunset provision on all new regulations. The Attorney-General (Mr Williams) stated in his second reading speech:This is the same bill that was introduced into the House of Representatives on 24 June 1996 and passed by that House on 11 September 1996. This bill was introduced into the Senate on 8 October 1996 and, notwithstanding the strong general support of the Senate for the bill, finally passed on 25 September 1997 with 18 government and 35 other amendments. A large number of the non-government amendments emasculated the stringent consultation principles and processes and removed the sunsetting regime.The House subsequently considered the Senate amendments and returned the bill, accepting the government amendments and rejecting the others, and some additional government amendments were added by the government in the House of Representatives. On 5 December last year the Senate reconsidered the bill and insisted on its previous amendments—most regrettably. The government is therefore reintroducing this important bill for consideration by the House of Representatives.I would like to make a couple of comments about the attitude of the Labor Party in relation to this piece of legislation. They really are indicating yet again how completely and totally out of touch they are with the Australian people. We have a clear mandate. The Labor Party ought to recognise that they were reduced to 49 seats in the House of Representatives at the election two years ago. We had 76 Liberal Party members and 18 National Party members elected, a government majority of 94 to 49 which is a strong mandate for this policy announced prior to the election; it was clear we would be introducing a bill into the parliament.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Legislative instruments wasn't a mandate at the last election. Come on!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—We included in two of our policies the fact that we would be introducing a bill before the House. In effect, we are aiming to reduce unnecessary regulation. We believe regulations should be sunsetted, and so the honourable member for Banks ought to backflip again. He should support the recommendations of his own committee, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in the last parliament, and he should back the position taken by the Attorney-General in this bill.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—The government isn't picking up our recommendations.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—My friend, you ought not to interject. You should be telling your colleagues in the Labor Party that they ought to support this bill. The honourable member for Banks is often heard to say in the parliament that the Attorney-General is rolled in the cabinet. The Attorney-General is a very effective Attorney-General and I believe that, largely, the cabinet would support his recommendations. In this matter my colleague opposite has been rolled by the troglodytes in the Labor Party. The Labor Party is not actually representing the personal views of the honourable member for Banks who, I believe, would want to see his party support this particular legislation.Mr Melham interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Banks should have been speaking now, but he was late. He is not speaking now, so he should be quiet.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—He was so late that we almost had to call a by-election in Banks. The government has broad support from the parliament for this bill and backing from the Australian community. Regrettably some people in the Labor Party think it is appropriate that small business should be entangled and enmeshed forever in regulations which are never removed from the statute books.I believe that the parliament ought to be a cooperative place. Where legislation that is fair, reasonable and sensible is introduced, it is vital that both sides of the parliament support it. The obstruction of the opposition in relation to the Legislative Instruments Bill is most disturbing. It seems as though the opposition is determined simply not to recognise our mandate, and in the other place to frustrate sensible and fair reform. Both houses have, in principle, passed the legislation. They have considered it, but they have been unable to agree on the actual clauses to be finally included.This is a classic case of the Senate playing politics. This is a classic case of the Labor Party seeking to frustrate the very effective work of the Attorney-General and the government. There are many other matters where the Labor Party has taken the same approach, and this is eminently regrettable. I do not want to digress from the bill—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Then don't.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—but the Wik legislation is another instance where the honourable member for Banks ought to have supported the government's determination to restore certainty and fairness for pastoralists and the general community, as well as for our indigenous Australians.To go back to the Legislative Instruments Bill—I know you will be pleased, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am continuing to do that—the hypocrisy, backflips and inconsistency shown by Labor, and in particular by the honourable member for Banks, are absolutely amazing. One would think that the honourable member for Banks is one of the fittest members in the chamber: the backflip that we have seen in relation to this legislation is outstanding and quite regrettable.The sunsetting of delegated legislation is a very important part of the government's policy on regulation review. It will ensure that business regulation is reduced to the minimum necessary for effective accountability and control. The member for Banks has no sympathy for small business, he has no empathy with small business and his actions in this place are undermining the capacity of small business to be run without unnecessary red tape and regulation.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Where did you get that from? I've been verballed.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Banks's tongue is flapping with too much force.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The member ought to keep quiet; the member ought to support this bill. I believe that, had the member been more persuasive, had he been a better advocate in the Labor Party, then the Labor Party would have been supporting this bill.Those opposite, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you personally know, do not care at all about small business. Their actions on this bill and on other bills are proof positive of the fact that they have lost touch not only with the Australian community but also with the Australian small business proprietor, who supplies so much employment to Australians.This bill, in accordance with government policy, will ensure that all new regulations are subject to a five-year sunset clause. This is an important policy that the government cannot and will not back away from. We have a clear mandate. This bill has been considered by the parliament over a period of five years. It has received general bipartisan support. In opposition we supported what the Labor Party was doing with respect to this matter, but now we find that they are seeking to undermine the effect of this bill.The amendments moved in the Senate by the Labor Party and the Democrats amount to legislative terrorism. They have really lost the plot and are playing a very base level of politics. They are completely, utterly and totally pathetic.We make no apologies for reintroducing this legislation to this place. This is a good bill, it is fair legislation and it is legislation which received the strong mandate of the Australian people at the last election. It is not too late for the Labor Party to do yet another backflip and support this bill so that the very worthwhile reforms contained in the Legislative Instruments Bill can become part of the law of this land. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.10:09:001214Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—At the outset, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you and the Main Committee for coming late. I had my times mixed up. I should have known better.A couple of things that the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) said need explanation. True it was that in the last parliament, when I was chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, we did an inquiry into the Legislative Instruments Bill 1994 and we brought down a number of recommendations. But what is also true is that not all of those recommendations have been picked up to the letter. Arising from that committee report, it became obvious to me that there were also different views within the various departments—within the Attorney-General's Department, within Prime Minister and Cabinet and within other bureaucracies—as to what the appropriate legislation should be.There is no doubt that this bill has a chequered and long history, and there has been a lot of consultation. But this bill has been the victim of politics within the bureaucracy, within Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury and Finance, because I know that those bureaucracies have a different view from various offices, for instance, within the Attorney-General's Department. That is all a matter of record, and it is a matter of knowledge as to what happens behind the scenes; that is all part of the process. What it means is that there is no idealistic view, there is no one right view. You have got people on all sides acting in good faith as to what they believe is the best way forward.In relation to the Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] , this second bill that has been returned to the House, it is in substantially the same form as the first bill that was introduced by the government last year. But it is also once again worthy of note that the government has refused to accept a single one of the amendments proposed by the Senate. For us that is extremely disappointing, because the Senate does have a role to play and individual Senators have a role to play—members of the Democrats, the Greens and, indeed, Senator Harradine.There are a number of problems with this bill that the Senate's amendments sought to remedy. In particular, the government's proposals for sunsetting seek to fundamentally alter the relationship between the executive and the Senate, to the executive's benefit and for no good reason. That is the view of the Senate. Despite this genuine concern, a concern that has been clearly unacceptable to the Senate, the government has made no attempt at this stage to address either this or any of the other matters in contention. This includes the seemingly innocuous requirement that legislative instruments not be written in sexist language. With even a modicum of goodwill on the part of the government, these issues could, and can still, be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.In this regard, I note that discussions are continuing between the government and the opposition in relation to this bill. For the record, I note the opposition's willingness, as it has had all along, to compromise on this bill, provided our genuine concerns are met. Yet despite these meetings having occurred—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Were you rolled by your colleagues?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! I would encourage the member for Fisher to set an example for the member for Banks and be quiet.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—I repeat that I note the opposition's willingness, as it has had all along, to compromise on this bill, provided our genuine concerns and the genuine concerns of the Senate are met. Yet despite meetings having occurred, and whilst the office of the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) has made some positive noises, the opposition and other players in the Senate are still yet to see any substantive offer of compromise from the Attorney's office on any issue. That is what I have been informed, that there have been some positive overtures.I say to the Attorney and his office that the opposition, and I would also take that to mean other senators, are looking to see what is back on the table. I say to the Attorney and the government that the concerns that the opposition, the minor parties in the Senate and Senator Harradine hold are genuine and should not be ignored. The Labor Party will not be walking away from them, nor, as I understand it, will the minor parties and Senator Harradine in the Senate.These issues can be addressed, we believe, in ways that are consistent with the government's policy objectives. What we ask is that the government shows some goodwill in these discussions. If the government wants a train wreck on what is ultimately a non-contentious piece of legislation, then so be it. If the government wants to explain to the Australian people why we are having a $60 million double dissolution on these issues, then I, for one, look forward to the campaign. The nonsense that the member for Fisher was spruiking earlier about this being a mandate for this government as a result of the last election—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—We said we were going to do it—4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—Produce one person who voted on legislative instruments in the last election. The government does not have a mandate in relation to this specific issue.There are many parts of this bill that are non-contentious and are agreed with by all sides of the parliament, and with a modicum of goodwill we will get there. The government's lack of commitment to accountable and responsible government will be exposed if they continue down this path.If they are genuine about getting the legislation through, then I suggest to the Attorney and his office that they come forward with some proposed amendments and the opposition will look at them. I have not been the negotiator between the government and other players. I am the spokesman in this House for the shadow Attorney-General. One of the reasons that I do not have my fingerprints all over this is that this is not within my portfolio. I have not been involved in the negotiations, and I put that on the record. I am here as the spokesman for Senator Bolkus who has carriage of the matter in the other place.As an indication of our dissatisfaction with the current bill, I can indicate that we will be voting against it on its second reading in the House today. I hope that we will be in a position to support an amended bill in the Senate. I repeat, I have been advised that at the Attorney's office there have been discussions behind the scenes. The opposition are waiting to see if there is room for compromise with goodwill and whether that can be done. The trouble is this is not a bill that will receive high priority in the Senate. It really should not be part of a double dissolution trigger. But the opposition for our part will not be intimidated into capitulating with a threat that we will have a double dissolution on this issue. This will not even be argued, per se.The broad principle that I have got is about separation of powers and empowering the parliament and the Senate to be a check on the executive. I, for one, believe in the separation of powers. I believe in the role of parliament as a check on the executive. I believe in scrutiny of the public service by the parliament and I am sure the Attorney does, as well. We are not the only ones on this side. These are principles that are espoused by us all.This is a complex piece of legislation. I do not believe that the government needs to be as intransigent as it is. The debate in the Senate occurred last time, and I am not going to go through those issues. I am advised that there are genuine concerns by members of the minor parties and Senator Harradine in relation to this, and I do not believe that those concerns can be swept under the carpet. With a modicum of goodwill, and if people go away and exchange notes on this, then I think we will get through. We will not get through if the government is not willing to come to the table in good faith.I am not saying that they have not at the moment. I am not saying that there has not been good faith. I have not had the minute carriage of this matter from day one, so I cannot speak on behalf of others. I have been advised that the opposition is willing, once they see some proposals coming from the Attorney's office, to talk through this with the government and with the other players so that we can have a piece of legislation that enjoys a broad support of the parliament. The last thing we want is a legislative instruments bill getting through the Senate one way or the other by one vote—one vote for the government's position, or one vote for the combined opposition position. It is just absurd.I will leave it there, but I indicate that we will be dividing on the second reading of this matter. There are no amendments that we will be putting forward because the government has got the numbers in the House of Representatives. I can see that.It reminds me of going to the New South Wales ALP conferences in my early days, as I continue to do now what I did then in being a warrior against the NSW Right. They did not worry about the arguments; they had the numbers; they could pass whatever resolutions they wanted. That did not make it good policy, no were they necessarily good resolutions.The Senate is a different ball game in relation to this. That is where the debate will occur. The government is not the repository of all wisdom. The minor parties and the Independent Senator Brian Harradine, have got a role to play. Their genuine concerns should be met. A lot of this, maybe, is perception. Maybe the government has met their genuine concerns, but not yet explained it well enough for them to show that their genuine concerns have been met. I do not know. That is a debate for a later day.10:20:001216Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—It is a very long time since this bill, the Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No. 2] , or its predecessor, was first put on the table of this parliament and it is an extremely disappointing situation that we are in at the moment. We have just had a speech from the spokesman for the opposition, the member for Banks (Mr Melham), as to the opposition's position on the bill. He mentioned two points of substance in relation to the bill: the first related to sunsetting and the second to sexist language. He did not indicate in any way what the problems are that the opposition has with the bill, except to say that the sunsetting regime empowers the executive as against the Senate.He did not say what the opposition would like to see in the bill. He did not propose any amendments. He did not really speak to the bill at all, he just called on the government to exercise goodwill. The government has a capacity to exercise goodwill but in this case this bill went up to the Senate and 35 non-government amendments were made, emasculating the bill and eliminating the sunsetting provisions. There was no discussion with the government prior to the debate in the Senate as to what was proposed. There were actually amendments made on the floor of the Senate at the whim of the individual senators.This bill has been around since late 1993, I think, and certainly since early 1994. It has been the subject of intense scrutiny by a committee chaired by the member for Banks—something he seemed to gloss over—and has been strongly supported by both sides of politics. The 1994 bill was introduced by the previous government. We have now got the situation where the opposition is going to vote against the bill, a bill that in broad terms it supports, a bill that in the previous parliament it actually introduced.The situation really exposes the opposition as being simply obstructive. If there is a genuine belief that the sunsetting provisions are of such a drastic nature as to generate opposition to the bill as a whole, one would have thought that there could have been an amendment of some sort suggested, but there has been none. The member for Banks, not at all to his credit—and not at all to the credit of the opposition—said, in effect, the debate will not be had in the House of Representatives, the debate will only be had in the Senate.This is something that has increasingly been occurring. Certainly, in relation to bills in my portfolio it has been occurring virtually every time there is any suggestion of opposition to a bill or when seeking an amendment. The amendment is not moved in the House of Representatives, it is often not even foreshadowed in the House of Representatives, it is only dealt with in the Senate. This represents, in my humble opinion, an abdication of responsibility on the part of those members of the House of Representatives who are in opposition. They are saying, `We're not in a position to do anything, we haven't got the numbers, so we're not going to bother, we'll leave it to the senators to do the work.' That means that the job that they were elected to do is not being done.The member for Banks is in a very difficult position. I suspect he probably supports the bill but his caucus or his shadow minister has instructed him to oppose it. It really is quite incredible. He is not even prepared to stay and listen to my response to his contribution.The member for Banks focused to a considerable extent on calling on the government to exercise goodwill. How can the government exercise goodwill when we have not heard the criticisms? The sunsetting provision is the principle one he mentioned. In the Senate the sunsetting provisions were entirely removed. It was not a case of discussion about how they could be improved, they were just eliminated.This is something that the committee, chaired by the member for Banks, recommended should, in due course, be done. In the 1994 bill it was only going to be partly done. In this bill, it has been extended. It was supported on a unanimous basis, by the members of the House of Representatives committee at the time; I notice the secretary of the committee is sitting beside you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not only extremely disappointing; I think it is an exposure of crass hypocrisy on the part of the opposition. It is an exposure of an abdication of responsibility on the part of the opposition members to treat the bill in this way.Let me just say something about the bill itself. When I re-introduced it, I indicated that the government wanted to get this fundamental reform of the delegated legislation process enacted. We want to make it law. There is substantial agreement, both in this House and in the other place, that this bill would represent a marked improvement on parliament's control of subordinate legislation. That view transcends party politics. The bill and its forerunner by the previous government had been considered by a number of parliamentary committees and reflect a large number of suggestions for improvement made by those committees.The inclusion of a definition of legislative instrument has provided greater certainty to the ambit of coverage. The definition has brought within the capacity of parliament scrutiny of a large range of instruments that have not previously been subject to scrutiny.The registration provisions ensure that persons and bodies affected by delegated legislation have the capacity to access that legislation before it applies to them. The tying of enforceability to registration ensures that no more important documents, retained in bottom drawers of public servants without publicity, can be used against unsuspecting citizens.The requirement for mandatory consultation for instruments should ensure that any future delegated legislation is necessary and is relevant. The sunsetting provisions, which would in general terms mean that regulations have a life of only five years, ensure that unnecessary delegated legislation is removed from the need for compliance at the earliest possible time.The consultation process is now proposed to be uniform and not limited simply to laws affecting business. Everybody will know what is required and the public will have a proper chance of making views known to the multiplicity of different procedures that breed public confusion and a reluctance for many of the public to comment on proposals.The procedures adopted are those agreed several years ago by COAG and are used for inter-governmental schemes and by many of the states for their own domestic purposes. I understand that there are provisions similar to those proposed here already in operation in four states. I know certainly that the House of Representatives committee in its 1994-95 study looked closely at the New South Wales and Victorian provisions. From memory, there was a dramatic impact on regulations in those states. I think, just from memory, that in Victoria something like 80 per cent of regulations were removed through the scheme. In New South Wales, something like 50,000 pages of regulations ceased to exist as a result of the legislation in those places.The changes suggested by the Senate would create difficulties for inter-governmental schemes and would require reconsideration by COAG of their processes. That issue will arise in the review of the policy and operation of the bill under clause 72 of the bill and is really a matter for the future.The parliament's powers to scrutinise delegated legislation have been considerably enhanced. Instruments are to be lodged with parliament much sooner, within six sitting days of being made, as distinct from the 15 sitting days which is the present requirement.The explanatory statement to be lodged with every instrument will provide a vast amount of additional material that has not previously been available for consideration by the parliament.Instead of reliance on undertakings to amend provisions, which the parliament finds unsatisfactory and which are frequently not properly satisfied, the bill provides for short deferral of disallowed unsatisfactory instruments to enable the rule maker to correct and identify deficiency.The drafting concerns raised in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs' report Clearer Commonwealth law are met by the provisions of the bill.This bill has been up and back between the Houses on a number of occasions. Changes have been made along the way. The bill we are putting is the bill that the government in the exercise of its executive responsibilities wants to enact. We do not want a double dissolution on the legislative instruments bill, as has been noted by many speakers.While it is important, it is not sexy. Nonetheless, it is important that the parliament recognise that the government has been advised that the bill complies with the requirements of section 57 of the constitution in its first stage, this being the second stage we are in at the moment. The bill has had amendments made in the Senate which are not acceptable to the government and not acceptable to the House. The bill has been laid aside by the House. It is being reintroduced after three months. If necessary, the constitutional processes for resolving deadlocks will be relied upon.The Legislative Instruments Bill 1996 [No.2] is a significant reform which should be welcomed by the parliament and by the people. I personally have taken a close interest in it for a number of years. I call on the opposition to support the bill when it moves through the parliament once again and not to abdicate responsibility and exercise the hypocrisy that we heard from the member from Banks. I commend the bill to the House.Question unresolved.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 277, the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.Bills1219r3891219Debate resumed from 26 November, on motion by Mrs Sullivan:That the bill be now read a second time.10:31:001219Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 does have the support of the opposition. As with many similar international processes, the process has been tortuous. It is fair to say, and I think it is accepted by both sides of politics, that Australia, its minister and its departments did play a fairly crucial and active role in regards to this chemical weapons convention. The multilateral negotiations having been completed in September 1992, Australia was active enough by 6 May 1994 to deposit its ratification, thus becoming the sixth country internationally to ratify. It is worth noting that Australia has been in the forefront of the group of 30 countries established in June 1985 to discourage and impede the proliferation by harmonising national export controls, chemical weapons and precursor chemicals, and by sharing information and seeking other ways to curb the use. It is fair to say that Australia has played quite a significant role in this matter.We are talking about ratification. The convention has had difficulties because of conflict in the Middle East. Despite Algeria, Morocco and a few countries being heavily involved early, a significant number of Middle East and Arab countries still refuse to sign because of problems with Israel. At this stage, it is worth noting on the parallel issue of the whole Middle East and weapons that this House did recently unanimously carry a resolution which referred to resolution 687 and the need to reduce weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.I do not think we can give too much credit in the area of efforts by this government in regards to the Middle East peace process and the attempt to bring Israel to the negotiating table. That is one area where there have been difficulties. In the United States, the Republican Party did choose at various stages to thwart the process of America moving towards agreement. In Russia, the military industrial complex and nationalist elements have also been fairly active in making sure that there are problems.This bill today obviously represents an understandable outcome from consultation by the government department, and more particularly, the chemical weapons convention office on the practicalities of the legislation and the convention and attempting to make sure it is effective and useful.A survey of 3,000 companies by this section of the Department of Foreign Affairs found that apparently 100 companies or organisations were identified as having had declarable activities. I note the comments by the member for Maribyrnong (Mr Sercombe) about a survey which he did say was not fantastically tight but which did show a disturbing lack of knowledge by senior management on the import of this legislation. Obviously, there is a need for more work to be done on that front.I want to say that I do not broadly disagree with the need to reduce red tape, et cetera, nor with the government not having too severe regulation. I am not criticising any of the initiatives of this legislation, but I think we have to be, in this particular area, very mindful that we are dealing with corporations that do not always have the greatest ethics in the international community. In the past fortnight, we have seen a British court case where the supposed suicide of a UK defence writer in Chile has now been put down to murder at the behest of a Chilean arms corporation. They attempted to indicate that he had suicided in a Santiago hotel. As I say, in the past fortnight, a British court has indicated that the defence writer was murdered because of revelations he was going to make in regard to a Chilean arms company's adaptation and sale of helicopters to Iraq.Similarly—and I have referred to this matter earlier—there was in the United Kingdom the Matrix Churchill scandal, where the Iraqis penetrated UK corporations, and some of those companies with no Iraqi involvement whatsoever willingly cooperated in aiding the Iraqi chemical weapons and nuclear areas. It is worth noting that in July 1993, in the journal Parliamentary Affairs, Mark Phythian did an analysis of what had happened in Britain, and he said:Parliament proved ineffective for a number of reasons, among them governmental information superiority, the inherent weakness of the Opposition in the defence field and the use of procedures which favour the executive branch. Throughout ministers and their civil servants were economical with the actuality relating to opaque language, half truths and on occasions outright untruths.Further, the Guardian on 18 February 1995, in regard to this matter, noted:The judge is certain to criticise Whitehall's prevailing culture of secrecy, dissembling and cynicism. He will criticise the way ministers, supported by civil servants, adopt a patronising attitude towards Parliament. He will criticise Customs officers and the Attorney-General, for the way they mishandled the Matrix Churchill prosecution; ministers, for trying to suppress evidence crucial to the defence; Government lawyers, for interfering in prosecution witness statements; civil servants, for misleading the court; officials, for ignoring key intelligence reports; ministers, for not asking for intelligence reports; and the intelligence agencies, for not ensuring their reports go to the right people.What we had there was, as I say, the way in which British companies collaborated behind the scenes in providing this assistance to the Iraqi regime. There was a failure—because of, I guess, the fear of public questioning—and essentially a cover-up by the bureaucracy and the political system, to make sure that that collaboration was not revealed.Whilst I am totally supportive of the measures in this bill, they do seem in their variety to go to very obvious problems with the previous convention requirements. They are, for instance, to make automatic the annual permit procedures over a five-year period; to simplify compliance obligations and thereby to minimise the possibility of inadvertent breaches; to clarify which industrial plants are subject to the declaration inspection; to refine secrecy measures; to allow electronic lodgment to become possible; and to provide tighter definitions of production, processing and consumption.I do not think any of those things are to be questioned; they seem to relate to very proper analysis and experience of what has occurred. But, as I say, I do not think we should have a preoccupation in this field with the reduction of government oversight—with the activity of the organisation, the office, to make sure that we essentially abide.It is worth noting, in regard to self-interest in this field, that in America this debate did become very political. I refer to an article by Zanders, Eckstein and Hart, Chemical and biological weapon developments and arms control, wherein they note:Both the National Federation of Independent Business and senior military officers and high-ranking members of the Reagan and Bush administrations expressed serious doubts about the CWC.There we have at the helm very active companies that had a commercial interest in this field. I am not at all saying that they have a desire to basically get involved and to avoid the measures. But we have to have on the agenda, in a very real way, a corporate, commercial interest in making sure that government oversight is minimised.In conclusion, the measures in this legislation are supported by the opposition. Australia has had a commendable level of activity with regard to getting to this convention. It is pleasing to see that it has been supported in this country by both sides of politics.We have seen, in recent months, a degree of concern regarding Iraq about this and other mass destruction weapon fields. We have seen, as I noted earlier, the continuing refusal of a number of Middle Eastern states to ratify because of their concerns with Israel. Ensuring that we try, by a variety of measures, to get these countries to the table is a measure about which this government obviously needs to be far more active.10:41:001221Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I am very glad to hear that the member for Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson) is supportive of most of the amendments in the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 19970V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—All of them.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—All of them, I should say. He also spoke today of companies which were engaged in espionage, criminal activities and safety and security issues. It is very important that we do speak about those areas, particularly under the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 because the bill does cover issues of national security, safety and protection for the whole of the Australian community. We have to be really thankful that we live in a country that, throughout its brief history, has had relatively little civil strife.This government is fully aware of its commitment to preserving Australia's national security and is prepared to provide the necessary leadership in defence issues. Furthermore, the government acknowledges its place in the world and has been a very strong voice in global moves towards the crackdown on the production of chemical and biological weapons, anti-landmines initiatives, and the winding back of nuclear powered weapons as a comprehensive program to enhance our national security.We have all taken an extremely close interest in the events in the Middle East recently and, particularly, the efforts of United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan's, mission to Baghdad. I agree that we have a considerable way to go in the Middle East and we are ensuring that we will work towards a favourable outcome there. The world now awaits. These issues have been very important and they must not escalate. A diplomatic solution must always be reached.Australia signed the chemical weapons convention on 30 January 1992 and ratified it on 6 May 1994. It was implemented by passing the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994. The chemical weapons convention was important as it was the first comprehensively verifiable multilateral treaty that banned an entire class of weapons. The convention also serves as an important deterrent to the spread of chemical weapons in our region.The determination from the convention is that it prohibits all aspects of chemical weapon development including production, acquisition, possession, transfer and use, and provides for the destruction of existing stocks and production facilities. The significance of the chemical weapons convention can be seen by the number of countries that are party to it: 165 countries signed this, and the majority have ratified since the convention was open for signature in 1993. These countries include China, the Republic of Korea and the United States.The legislation under debate today is another piece in the government's strong stance in national security policy. That includes the government's strong stance on issues such as anti-personnel landmines. With issues regarding the environment, safety, health and welfare, our role and decisions have had a marked impact on future generations.I would like to speak about some of the amendments. In real terms, the chemical weapons act provides the establishment of service permits and notifications to collect information from chemical facility operators in Australia. Many commercial products are chemical compounds which are used in the make-up of these weapons. It has been outlined that the chemical production of sulfur mustard involves the process of condensation and chlorination.Although certain chemical companies may not produce legitimate commercial products in a way which may be used in the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons, many of these companies have the capability to do so. Therefore, these plants need to be monitored under the chemical weapons convention.For Australia, activities in the three main areas are the subject of chemical weapons convention monitoring and verification requirements. There are activities which involve chemicals in the chemical weapons convention schedules and which require a permit under the act, activities which produce certain organic chemicals and which require notification under the act, and export and import licensing for chemicals in the chemical weapons convention schedule.The Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 arises from initial declarations which are found within the chemical weapons act, but there are areas which need refinement and areas which need to minimise administration requirements. Similarly, there are other issues which need to be dealt with to ensure that Australia's commitments under the chemical weapons convention are fulfilled. There are a number of technical aspects included in this bill, and these issues deal with the automation of annual permit renewal processes within the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994 and the simplification of compliance requirements.The bill recognises and clarifies a number of issues which have been raised as a result of the regulation which exists in the act. Under item 4 of the bill, allowance is made for the replacement of lodging approved forms, by allowing companies to submit electronically. This is for the purpose of submitting information required for the declaration of past years' activities or for periodical special reports. As well, an automatic renewal process is inserted in the legislation, ensuring a one-year permit has validity for up to five years.Further amendments in the bill deal with the inspections carried out by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and deal specifically with compliance and the role of inspectors, as well as privileges and immunity. This is an issue of national security. It is an issue of international obligation and of ensuring the security of the Australian people. It is also an issue that ensures the stability of the environment and our region. It is an issue which needs the support of industry, and the government has worked diligently with industry to ensure that the amendments, which are being debated here today, have come about only after full consultation and discussion.I think all members would agree that, when it comes to technical guidelines concerning the prohibition of chemical weapons, the government has certain obligations which have been met by these amendments that we speak of here today. Australia is well recognised throughout the world as a leader in national security measures, and incorporating this bill will continue Australia's pace on the world scene.10:48:001223Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—The purpose of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 is to implement amendments to the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994, to improve the administration of this act and to thus allow Australia to better fulfil its obligations under the chemical weapons convention. In fact, this act is Australia's legislative response upon becoming a signatory to the chemical weapons convention in January 1993 and ratifying it on 6 May 1994.The chemical weapons convention expresses a high level of concern shared by many nations to completely ban an entire class of weapons. It puts into practice an intention, by way of a verifiable multilateral treaty, to prevent all aspects of chemical weapon development. Its provisions cover production, acquisition, possession, transfer and use, and the destruction of existing stocks and production facilities.Australia signed the convention as part of our abhorrence of this horrendous form of warfare and, in so doing, clearly established our commitment to the Australian people and to the people of the world by the creation of a national authority, known as the Chemical Weapons Convention Office. Unlike other nations, Australia does not have chemical weapons facilities or any stocks of chemical weapons, but it is the role of the Chemical Weapons Convention Office to closely monitor our commercial chemical industry, because history has shown that sections of this industry in other countries have been significantly involved in the production of chemical warfare.During World War I, the horrendous effect upon human beings caused by chemical weapons like mustard gas sickened and repulsed the people of the world. These new horror weapons have been manufactured from chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas agents which were supplied by factories engaged in the business of commercial dyes for industrial purposes.It is the concern of the convention to monitor closely the activities of chemical industries in all nations of the world, because the chemical processes that are used to create legitimate chemicals for lawful commercial purposes are also the same processes that can produce chemical weapons of mass destruction.A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 10.52 a.m. to 11.09 a.m.VK6Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALE—The monitoring process of the chemical industry in Australia is a two-part process. One part is the declaration by chemical companies of activities involving specific chemicals and the quantities involved, and the second part is an inspection procedure to verify that a company's activities are consistent with its declarations and that its facilities are not used for any purposes prohibited under the convention, such as the production of chemicals which could be used as weapons.This amendment will streamline the operation of the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act by reducing the administrative burden on those companies and organisations directly affected by the legislation. Administrative improvements made by this act include five-year permits instead of annual permit renewals; approved information forms which may now be electronically submitted for greater efficiency; and the requirement that only certain classes of notifiers have to provide reports.Australia believes that the chemical weapon convention is a valuable component in the building of regional security and that it provides the basis for ensuring that these inhumane weapons do not spread to our region. Of the 167 signatories to the convention, 106 states have now ratified the convention. However, it is only the United States, Russia, Iraq and India that have admitted that they possess chemical and biological weapons, although Iraq has continued to claim that its chemical agents and munitions were destroyed in the 1991 Gulf War.While it may be encouraging to note that the majority of the world's industrial chemical producers are now covered by the convention, ratification in our own part of the world is patchy to say the least. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Burma and Thailand are yet to ratify, despite Australia's active encouragement to do so.It is of further concern that the protocol of the conventions is that the declarations lodged by signatory nations be treated as confidential. I believe that only when such information is open for the full scrutiny of the people of all nations will the world be able to feel a safer place. We should all be able to ascertain which nations are continuing this lethal activity, because it is the civilian populations who are the most vulnerable to this type of warfare. Publication of such information would also serve to expose those nations to the censure of the rest of the world for their activities. When we recall that such lethal weapons are comparatively cheap to produce compared to the more traditional form of munitions warfare, we understand why chemical and biological weapons are greatly attractive to developing nations of the Third World.While we are discussing the prevention of chemical weapons, it is well to note that biological warfare is also a fearful concern. The biological weapons convention entered into force in 1975. Its signatories undertook never to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise keep biological weapons.On March 2 of this year, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) announced an initiative aimed at fast-tracking the negotiations for a verification system for the biological weapons convention. He called for urgent political commitment to establish a national advisory group to create an appropriate verification regime and an effective protocol to contain the spread of such weapons of mass destruction through effective and verifiable means. The existence of weapons of chemical and biological warfare presents a real and present danger to all the people of the planet.In recent weeks, the eyes of the world were focused on the nation of Iraq and its suspected activities in the production and stockpiling of agents of chemical and biological warfare. As Iraq had refused entry to the inspectors of the United Nations to inspect presidential sites which were thought to contain chemical weapons, the United States, determined to force compliance by Iraq, prepared a military attack on that country. This attack was averted only by the diplomacy of the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan. However, full compliance with the diplomatic commitment gained from Iraq by Mr Annan has yet to be put into practice. The world still holds its breath. The President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, has a certain reputation for duplicity and deception, especially where the West is concerned. His record in the use of such warfare is appalling. In the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam Hussein deployed large quantities of anthrax and other biological weapons in Kuwait and southern Iraq for use against allied soldiers.Despite the convention, there are many countries which have chemical and biological weapon programs. China is reported to be in a position in the near future to have the expertise and delivery capability to integrate chemical weapons into its traditional arsenal. Reports from the Pentagon indicate that North Korea also has an extensive chemical warfare program, as do the Middle Eastern countries of Iran, Syria and Libya. Israel is widely suspected of having a very real capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons at any time.The destruction in human terms by weapons such as these is awesome. The Minister for Foreign Affairs said that Iraq has enough VX nerve gas to kill every living soul on the planet, while a mere ounce of anthrax spores passed through the airconditioning system of a sports stadium could kill upwards of 70,000 people.A special report from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, derived from a special commission report from the United Nations, has revealed that a number of weapons and raw materials in Iraq are still unaccounted for. These include 4,000 tonnes of raw materials for chemical weapons, 31,000 chemical weapon munitions, 600 tonnes of raw material for the deadly VX nerve gas and 17 tonnes of growth mediums for biological weaponry.On 21 February this year, the Age newspaper noted that biological and chemical weapon build-up in Iraq presented the prospect of doomsday to the world. Iraq has acknowledged producing 2,265 gallons of anthrax which is thought to be capable of killing billions of people. Its spores first cause flu-like symptoms and fatigue, followed by severe chest congestion. It can lie dormant for several days and in its second phase it assaults the kidneys, liver and lungs. It is fatal in 80 per cent of cases.It is thought that 3,117 US gallons of botulinum toxin is held in storage in Iraq. This could wipe out the world's population several times over. This toxin is found in contaminated food and it produces a highly toxic substance which causes blurred vision, a dry mouth, difficulty in swallowing and speaking, and weakness. Paralysis, respiratory failure and death follow in 30 per cent of cases of people affected by this toxin. The bacterium clostridium perfringens was produced by Iraq in hundreds of litres at the Al Hakum centre and was destroyed by the United States during inspections in 1996. The United Nations says that this bacterium, a common source of food poisoning, forms spores that can live in soil and can cause gas gangrene in open wounds. Gas gangrene produces pain and swelling as the infected area swells with gas; and shock, jaundice and death soon follow.VX is a highly toxic nerve gas produced in Iraq and used with mustard gas in 1988 against the Kurds in Halabja, in Iraqi Kurdistan, in a nightmare of attempted genocide by Saddam Hussein against this ancient nomadic people. Since the 1980s, Iraq is believed to have stockpiled quantities of agent 15, which is a mental incapacitant. Its effects upon human beings are weakness, dizziness, disorientation and loss of coordination, before death. If that is not enough, the United Nations reports that Iraq used its Daura foot-and-mouth disease facility south of Baghdad to study the deadly virus camelpox, haemogenic conjunctivitis—which causes bleeding of the eyes—and human rotavirus, which is the most common form of severe diarrhoea amongst young children.The recent military preparations by the United States and Australia against an intransigent Iraq make it clear to the world that this kind of chemical and biological activity will not be tolerated by the West—and neither should it be. Despite the diplomatic agreement patiently forged by the United Nations Secretary-General, the world waits and watches Iraq for its compliance with that agreement. Saddam Hussein should now be well aware that any further provocation at this point will be met with an immediate military response. This is an alarming situation for the whole world, but it is one from which we cannot resile if we want our world to be a safer place for all of us. No nation should be able to refuse inspection protocols with impunity. Any nation that dares to do so threatens the security of all of us and should be aware that it courts immediate hostility from all nations.How greatly it would enhance world safety if the mandatory declarations of the chemical weapons convention were not kept confidential but could be open for all the world to see, because only that would make it a greatly safer place! But, by this amendment, Australia is sending out strong messages of peace and cooperation to the rest of the world. We stand with open palms on the issue of these weapons, which not only have the capacity to cause horrific suffering to thousands of human beings but also could literally cause the destruction of life on earth as we know it. I commend the legislation to the House.23:18:001226Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—Because of other events that have delayed the committee, I certainly will not be taking my full 20 minutes in the debate on the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 . I would like to commend the honourable member for Hughes (Mrs Vale) on her speech. I think she outlined in a very chilling way the dangers posed by chemical weapons throughout the world and, also, the importance of the mission to ensure that Iraq does not continue to have and produce weapons of mass destruction.The purpose of the bill before the committee is to amend the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994 and to rectify certain problems identified during its initial implementation. It is one of those happy bills which enjoy the support of both sides of the parliament. It is only rarely that I commend the former government, but I was particularly pleased that the former government was one of the first to ratify this convention. I think we were the sixth country to ratify, and almost the whole world has now signed this convention. If this convention can be properly implemented throughout the world, clearly our globe will be a much safer place—not only for us but also for future generations.For Australia, which does not have chemical weapon facilities or stocks to destroy, the main focus of the CWC verification is related to the production and use of chemicals listed in the convention. Historically, parts of the chemical industry have played a major role in chemical warfare production programs. I am told that industrial dye production factories supplied chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas agents used during World War I. More recently, Iraq's chemical warfare production used equipment originally intended for a blander purpose—that is, the production of commercial pesticides. That is why it is important for all countries to be vigilant to ensure that chemical companies do not in fact use a product that is intended for commercial purposes for the purposes of producing chemical weapons.The honourable member for Hughes outlined the horrendous possibilities with respect to what could happen if the Iraqi chemical weapons program is allowed to continue unabated.At this stage, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) and also the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) for supporting the position of the government in backing the very strong action by the United States in implementing the United Nations resolution passed by the Security Council some time ago.There have been compliments extended to the United Nations Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. But he himself has said that it would not have been possible to cut the deal with President Saddam Hussein of Iraq, had it not been for the deterrent force that was being built up by President Clinton and the allied countries. It is very important that Iraq be reined in. It is vital that weapons and chemicals which remain unaccounted for are in fact located.As a nation, it is essential that we play our part. Therefore, this legislation seeks to amend our own acts to better enable Australia to implement its obligations under the convention. As I said, this is a bill which enjoys very broad support not only in the parliament but in the widespread community. I am pleased that it is being backed by the opposition. Many of the things I was going to say have been said by earlier speakers, so I will not detain the committee by repeating them.I do, however, believe that we hold this world in trust for future generations: we really only rent our time in this planet. The environment of the world is absolutely important and the eradication of weapons of mass destruction and, particularly, chemical and biological weapons should be a prime aim of any civilised country. I am very pleased that both sides of parliament and, indeed, the general community have made a very firm statement that Australia is one of those civilised countries. I support this bill very strongly.I would also like to commend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mrs Sullivan), who is in the chamber, on her second reading speech. It set out very clearly why this bill ought to be implemented and why it ought to be passed as soon as possible.11:23:001227Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—It is a great pleasure to be able to speak on the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 , which will help implement some of the provisions of the chemicals weapons convention.The chemical weapons convention, which was signed by Australia in 1993 and ratified in 1994, should help to counter the current proliferation in chemical weapons that we see around the world today. It should also help to reduce the number of states that have a chemical warfare capacity. The declarations will be confidential under the convention unless a state releases its declaration. Having the convention should make it much more difficult for states to conceal illegal programs or to maintain their stockpiles. Under the provisions of the chemical weapons convention, any accused state must allow a thorough investigation. If it denies inspectors access, it will have to face sanctions.An article in the Bulletinof Atomic Scientists, September-October 1997, produced a chemical weapons atlas. It pointed out that there are only four states in the world that have actually admitted that they have chemical weapons—that is, the United States, Russia, Iraq, and now, recently, India; the United States has started to destroy its stockpile—but it then went on to point out that there are a number of countries that have had a chemical weapons capacity in the past and some that have actually used chemical weapons.For example, Egypt, according to an intelligence estimate, actually employed phosgene and mustard agent against Yemeni royalist agents in the mid-1960s. There are reports that Israel, Syria and Iran maintain a chemical warfare testing capacity. Of course Iran used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war, and Iraq was using them as well. Most famously, Iraq is the gold medallist in developing chemical weapons and in evading inspections, and then there are Libya and Saudi Arabia.In Asia, the article mentioned North Korea, which has been mentioned a number of times for developing chemical weapons, and also India, Pakistan, China, Taiwan, Burma and perhaps Vietnam. In Europe, it mentioned Yugoslavia, Romania, former Czechoslovakia and France, and it also noted that Britain produced large quantities of chemical weapons during World War II but that they were all disposed of, incinerated, in the 1950s.Australia has played a leading role in international disarmament relating to weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, and in eliminating anti-personnel landmines. Australia salvaged the comprehensive test ban treaty two years ago and, in September 1996, had it voted for overwhelmingly at the United Nations General Assembly. Of course Richard Butler, an Australian, is the head of UNSCOM. Australia was the sixth nation to ratify the chemical weapons convention in 1994.One of Australia's great strengths in foreign policy is the lead that it takes in forming like-minded coalitions based on issues in a multilateral fashion. Examples of that are the Cairns Group of agricultural free trading nations and the role Australia played in completing the comprehensive test ban treaty. They show how effective Australia, as a medium-sized power, can be in building a coalition based on issues.The spread and manufacture of weapons of mass destruction must be limited and the chemical weapons convention, which Australia signed in January 1993, provides a rules based system to limit chemical weapons. Industrial chemists have been closely associated with the production of chemical weapons. For example, in World War I, factories dedicated to producing industrial dye were able to supply chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas. Some of the precursors for Iraq's chemical weapons have come from pesticides. Many chemical plants have the capacity to produce chemical weapons—and, as I will demonstrate, Iraq has used this capacity of dual use to try to evade international inspections and to try to hide how widespread their chemical weapons program is.The Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Act 1994 should affect about 100 Australian companies in the chemical and textile industries as well as bodies like DSTO. It is extremely unlikely that Australia would ever be challenged under the chemical weapons convention, and it is extremely unlikely that we would ever have inspectors come to investigate a breach of the convention. The bill is designed to simplify the administration of the act, and it makes the permit simpler.Chemical weapons still remain a threat today. Thousands of Kurds and Iranians were killed by the chemical weapons that Saddam Hussein unleashed in the 1980s. Iraq has declared that it has destroyed its stockpiles, but it has admitted that it had supplies of anthrax, botulinum toxin, aflatoxin, ricin, gas gangrene—they are all biological weapons—and chemical weapons such as VX, sarin—the one used in the Tokyo subway in 1995—and mustard gas.According to the Washington Post, it is believed that Iraq has warheads and aerial bombs filled with biological agents, aerosol spray tanks for aircraft, and warheads filled with chemicals. Presently unaccounted for are 15,000 to 25,000 rockets, 2,000 aerial bombs and 15,000 artillery shells which would all have the potential to deliver biological or chemical agents. It is worth reflecting that, had Israel not acted promptly in June 1981 by launching an air strike on the Osirak reactor, it is likely that Iraq would now have a nuclear weapons program as well.UNSCOM reports that Iraq claims to have destroyed 550 artillery shells filled with mustard gas. There is no evidence of that. There are 4,000 tonnes of chemical weapons precursor which cannot be found; and 31,000 chemical weapons delivery systems, 600 tonnes of raw material for VX and 17 tonnes of growth media—which can be used for the production of biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin and so on—which are all unaccounted for.Iraq used the mustard agent tabun and sarin repeatedly during the Iran-Iraq war, and in 1988 used mustard and nerve gas on the Kurdish town of Halabja. Chemical weapons are not localised to the places where they are produced. As the Tokyo subway attack with sarin showed in 1995, chemical weapons can be released anywhere.To date, UNSCOM has destroyed 480,000 litres of chemical weapons agents—83 per cent was mustard gas, 17 per cent nerve agent—1.8 million litres of precursor chemicals, 48 operational missiles and 30 missile warheads. The sheer numbers of those are horrific. As the member for Hughes (Mrs Vale) said, there is enough VX, enough anthrax, enough botulinum toxin to wipe out the global population. But still there is a lot more that is unaccounted for.In April 1996, the Office of the United States Secretary of Defense, in its report Proliferation: threat and response, showed how Iraq had evaded the inspections of the international bodies that try to patrol the use of weapons of mass destruction. The report stated that Iraq misled foreign suppliers and governments regarding the end users of purchases, that it gained controlling interests in Western companies to place orders and that it used front companies to facilitate covert acquisition activities to funnel dual-use technologies. It sent Iraqi students to Western universities: the woman who is in charge of the biological weapons program and who has been profiled in some of the press was educated at a British university.The report describes the nuclear program of Iraq as a textbook case of how many avenues a country can use to develop a nuclear program and also to evade organisations like the IAEA. It is reported also that the Iraqi nuclear program was largely disrupted by, firstly, the 1981 strike by Israel and, secondly, Desert Storm. This was the subject of a motion that was considered by the House and it was good to see the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) so promptly support the possible use of force against Iraq.It is worth remembering that in the 1980s, when Labor did have some problems with some of the issues that it faced—for example, the United States joint defence facilities and also the mining of uranium—Bill Hayden and others were able to get the Left of Labor on side by saying that the United States joint defence facilities actually promoted peace. I would have thought that there was a good case for the Left of Labor, rather than being opposed to military action against Iraq, actually to support it.It is worth reflecting that in the whole 53 years that the United Nations, which has passed 1,000 resolutions, has existed, only twice has the United Nations Security Council authorised force. The first time was in the Korean War, when the Soviet Union was absent for a while, and the second was during the Gulf War over 40 years later, when the Soviet Union actually supported the use of force, I think, under article 7 of the charter. For the whole period in between there was an impasse whereby use of the veto by one or other superpower meant that the United Nations was never able to act as a body.So it is all right for elements of the ALP to say that we need more diplomacy. There is a real question as to whether Hussein would ever have come to the negotiating table without the demonstration of force that was made by the United States, along with countries like Australia. He has shown repeatedly that he is prepared to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capabilities and he will do anything to evade international inspection.The chemical weapons convention is a step forward in terms of eliminating proliferation and reducing the number of countries which have chemical weapons capabilities. I commend the bill.11:35:001230Sullivan, Kathryn, MPMrs SULLIVAN3E4MoncrieffLP10—in reply—I will open by thanking all the participants in this debate on the Chemical Weapons (Prohibition) Amendment Bill 1997 . The list of acts which relate to the foreign affairs portfolio is quite a short one, when you compare it with the list for virtually every other portfolio. Therefore members do not get much opportunity to debate foreign affairs legislation. All who have—a significant list of members on this occasion—made a very worthwhile contribution. I thank them for their contributions.Naturally, the member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Brereton), as the shadow foreign minister, responded. But I also acknowledge the contributions of the members for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith), Maribyrnong (Mr Sercombe), Groom (Mr Taylor), Reid (Mr Laurie Ferguson), Petrie (Ms Gambaro), Hughes (Mrs Vale), Fisher (Mr Slipper) and Boothby (Dr Southcott). I thank them all for their thoughtful contributions.When this bill was introduced last year, the world from our point of view was a relatively tranquil place. Since then, of course, we have had the matter of heightened tensions in the Gulf and that has given a very particular point to this legislation. The bill was not one that attracted much public attention at the time; it probably will not attract much public attention now. But the issues that it covers are ones that have attracted very intense public attention in recent times for the reason that I have just referred to. The prospect of chemical or biological warfare as a reality in our world has been one that has presented itself to us very forcefully via the mass media.Many Australians would also have looked askance at the news reports, emanating from the United States, of a suggestion that some citizens there had the ability to wreak havoc with anthrax on the population of the United States of America. As it turns out, that apparently was not to be. Nevertheless, I am sure we were all paying very close attention to that, and Australians would have been appalled at the thought that this could happen in a civilised society and out of a war situation.It is therefore all the more reassuring to know that we do have in place in this country very good legislation which protects the interests of citizens, as well as protecting Australia's international reputation in terms of adherence to its international obligations and treaty commitments. This bill is to amend our earlier legislative response to our treaty obligation and to, in effect, tidy up that legislation. Its now having been in effect for a little while—the act being of 1994—we have had the opportunity, after consultation with industry, to identify those areas that needed some tidying up or tightening.The debate has been essentially supportive. There was some minor criticism which I shall refer to. The member for Kingsford-Smith criticised the Howard government's actions in relation to the Canberra Commission. That is a criticism that the government entirely rejects. I thank the member for Groom for the reference he made to that criticism in his speech, and for his personal initiative in going to the comprehensive test ban treaty office in Vienna to see what is happening there and how it impacts on our commitment in this area. I thank the member for Groom for that input and I recommend to the member for Kingsford-Smith that he might pursue that course of action.There was another criticism, made by the member for Maribyrnong, in relation to industry consultation. My recollection, in summary, of what he said was that a member of his staff had contacted a number of firms on his behalf and that the response was vague in terms of knowledge of the bill's requirements. I want to assure the parliament that industry consultation is an important part of the government's administration of this act.Negotiation of the convention, the initial implementation of the act, and the changes in this bill, have all been the subject of very comprehensive consultation with industry. I refer the member for Maribyrnong to my second reading speech—I am sure he has read it—in which I particularly thanked the Australian chemical industry for their input and, in that context, I made a very particular acknowledgment of the contribution made by the Plastics and Chemicals Industry Association. In fact, the government was in close consultation and invited input from all firms in the industry, all had the opportunity to make an input and the industry's own association made a significant input.Only in the last three years, the Chemical Weapons Convention Office has made approximately 5,000 contacts with chemical companies and industry associations. Two thousand CWCO industry guides have been circulated and articles have been placed in industry journals. As the member for Groom noted in his speech on this subject, there is ample information available from the department's Internet web site. The member for Maribyrnong said that his office had contacted some major chemical companies on a random basis in a short time. He observed that those contacted did not display a high degree of knowledge of the act.I can assure the parliament that the CWCO has appropriate contacts with the companies mentioned. These contacts are with specific company officials and are structured so as to minimise disruption to the company's operations and administration. Since his speech, the department has identified the companies that he contacted, and I have a quite detailed brief from the department on all of those companies.The member for Maribyrnong indicated that calls had been made to certain companies, namely: Orica, Wesfarmers, Du Pont, and Albright and Wilson. Each of these companies is quite a large organisation. Orica—formerly ICI—and Wesfarmers are both made up of multiple business units. In its initial industry surveys in 1995-96, CWCO approached all of these companies, both at head office level and at business unit level. Contact has been ongoing with those elements of the companies directly affected by the CWC, with most recent contacts being within the last two months at the level of, for example, plant manager. So the contact is recent.I have other information that I am not going to place on the record because it could impinge on the issue of commercial confidentiality in relation to the companies' structures. But I assure the House that, from the description given to me of the actual units of each one of those firms involved, the relevant people are being constantly kept up to date. The message from all of that is that the member for Maribyrnong, or a staff member, in making those random contacts per telephone, would have some difficulty in identifying just whom he should be speaking to in those very large firms. It is not surprising that he would get what he thought were some fairly vague sorts of responses, because he could not very easily identify the person he should speak to, the person who needs to know about the act.However I shall make a particular reference in the case of Albright and Wilson, one of the companies he referred to. Albright and Wilson has major sites in Sydney and Melbourne, one of which is affected by the CWC and which was visited by the CWCO in early 1997. Dr Richard Thwaites of Albright and Wilson has been involved in advising on the CWC's impact on industry for some years and has provided detailed comments on the proposals which led to the drafting of the current bill. I say that to illustrate that in one of the companies that the member referred to, the key person there, in fact, has been extremely active in the drafting of the bill and would be one of Australia's authorities on it. I doubt that the member for Maribyrnong's researcher would have known that Dr Richard Thwaites was the person he needed to talk to in that particular company.From CWCO's observations, Australian CWC industry declarations are amongst the best and most complete of any chemical weapons conventions declarations, a result which must rely on good communication with industry. The fact that Australia has been amongst the first countries to receive OPCW inspections in industry facilities is also regarded as indicative of the appreciation by that organisation that Australia is one of the best prepared in this area and represents a useful training ground in these early stages of the convention's implementation.Turning to the international aspects of the bill, the definition of a facility agreement will be clarified, bringing it into line with that used in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Certain provisions dealing with the conduct of on-site inspections by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons will be recast to ensure full legislative backing for treaty mandated inspections and to make clear the roles of Australian international inspectors. Australia views the Chemical Weapons Convention as important to the success of international disarmament and non-proliferation efforts. Its verification machinery, which this bill addresses, is vital to its effectiveness.Australia played a pivotal role in bringing the Chemical Weapons Convention to fruition. As the government announced on 2 March 1998, Australian diplomatic efforts will now be turned towards strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention through fast tracking negotiations on a verification system. We need to take this step because, as Iraq's development of a large-scale biological weapons program shows, a legal norm in itself is insufficient to ensure compliance.Comprehensive support from members in their comments for the Howard government's Biological Weapons Convention initiative is appreciated and bodes well for a strong Australian input into achieving the desired international outcome. Initial experience with the Chemical Weapons Convention has demonstrated the strength that verification machinery addresses to an arms control treaty. By improving its own national measures, Australia can encourage others to adopt best practice in implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention.In conclusion, I wish to convey the apologies of the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his inability to take passage of this bill personally. That is one of the hazards of being a foreign minister, with an international role, of course. As a final postscript, I should like to give my personal thanks to those officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who have worked hard on this legislation—and who have worked hard on advising me on what I needed to know about it. I also thank all members for their very useful contributions to this very important debate.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.COMMONWEALTH PLACES (MIRROR TAXES) BILL 1998Cognate bills:Bills1233r442Billsr443Billsr4381233Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.11:48:001233Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—I rise today to speak on the Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Bill 1998 and the cognate bills. The mirror taxes legislation package is not about taxes on mirrors, as some may imagine, but in fact it seeks to deal with the issues raised in the 1996 High Court decision in Allders International Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of State Revenue (Victoria).This case held that a state's stamp duty on a lease covering part of a Commonwealth place—that is to say, Commonwealth land or Commonwealth building—was constitutionally invalid. The reasoning employed in that case means that it follows logically that other state taxes concerning Commonwealth places may also be invalid. Apparently, the Commonwealth has been advised that as well as the various types of stamp duty which are levied by the states, some of the other taxes raised at the state level such as payroll tax, financial institutions duty and debits taxes may also be constitutionally invalid.Clearly, this situation poses a threat to the revenue base of the states and, unsurprisingly, these other governments have accordingly requested the Commonwealth to enact this legislation. The threat to the states involves both future revenue streams and the more significant issue of the compulsory refunding of all taxes previously collected concerning Commonwealth places. Accordingly, under this package of legislation the Commonwealth will impose mirror taxes, that is to say, identical taxes, on Commonwealth places, to those that would prevail if the Commonwealth places were not owned by the Commonwealth.The revenue from these mirror taxes, payroll tax, stamp duties, financial institutions duties and debits taxes will be passed on to the relevant states. Even though the Commonwealth will be raising the revenue, there is a commitment that all of the revenue raised will be for the financial benefit of the states. That is, in our view, a fair and workable solution to the constitutional issues raised in the Allsop decision and will not be opposed by Labor.The second important point to recognise about the mirror taxes regime is the extent of the regime. At the moment the legislation, which is specifically schedule 1 of the Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Bill 1998, applies to only those state taxes which are individually listed. Provision is also made to extend the scope of the mirror taxes regime by regulation should the need arise. This is achieved by the definition of `state taxing law' in clause 3 of the Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Bill 1998 including any tax which is prescribed in regulations to the bill. At present, there are no such regulations. However, Labor is happy to support this situation as it will mean that, if any state does introduce such a tax in the future, then its addition to this package of legislation will be able to be achieved quickly and efficiently without the need for the passage of further specific legislation. Of course, this regulation will be disallowable by either House, as it should be, and therefore does not represent an unreasonable delegation of what is really a technical revenue issue.The third major issue covered by these bills is the question of windfall refunds. Where the courts hold that taxes are constitutionally imposed, all of the collections of the taxes must be refunded to the relevant taxpayers. This means that all of the stamp duty considered in all such cases ever collected from taxpayers relating to Commonwealth places must be refunded to the registered taxpayers.The problems with refunds of this type are twofold. First, the cost to the various state governments of making tax refunds will necessarily impact on the level of resources available to the states for services such as health, education, law and order, community services and other essential services. We do not know what the potential scope of the refunds would be if this legislation is not passed. But I assume that the figure could well be of the order of tens of millions of dollars across all of the states.Secondly, the refunds will flow to the legal taxpayer. Normally, businesses which pay taxes pass the economic effects of the tax onto their customers through their pricing structure. Accordingly, if those taxes were then refunded to the taxpayer, that would represent a windfall to those businesses because they have already passed on the tax to consumers.This legislation is fair, both for users of state services and to avoid an unfair windfall being handed to some taxpayers. To protect the states from having to refund or pass tax collections relating to Commonwealth places, a 100 per cent windfall tax is imposed by the Commonwealth on all such refunds. This is achieved by the state deducting the windfall tax at the rate of 100 per cent from the refund before it is paid. The taxpayer is notified in the refund notice that the windfall has been deducted; the refund tax is then remitted to the Commonwealth. The liability to make this payment to the Commonwealth creates a liability in the Commonwealth to pay an equal amount to the state. Although it is a somewhat complex process, it does ensure that no windfall gains accrue to taxpayers at the expense of the states.A similar windfall tax model was implemented to overcome the High Court decision in the Ha and Lim and Walter Hammond cases, which members may recall invalidated the business franchise fees collected by the states on tobacco, alcohol and so on. Accordingly, for those reasons I have just detailed, the opposition will not be opposing this package of legislation.This is an example of government acting to fix problems concerning Commonwealth-state legislation. It is relevant because we are having a debate at the moment about our tax system and whether our tax system is broken or not. It is evidenced that, although there are problems from time to time in Commonwealth-state financial relations, these problems are not beyond being fixed. It is regrettable that the government has been endeavouring to mislead the Australian public by essentially taking the position that the tax system is beyond repair and that, therefore, we need to have a GST and there is no alternative.Frankly, it is time for the government to come clean with its model concerning tax reform and to explain to the Australian people exactly what it intends. At present we are having a phoney debate concerning GST and tax reform. We do not have any indication of the amounts proposed or of whether the level is to be 10 per cent, 12½ per cent, 15 per cent or some other figure. We do not have any indication of what the exemptions might be, or whether financial services, health, education and food are to be exempted. We do not have any indication of how money collected through a GST might come back to taxpayers in the form of reduced taxes of other kinds, nor of just how the government intends to make use of this money.It is at present a phoney debate; and, frankly, the Australian people are being treated with contempt. They are entitled to better. They are entitled to know what the details of the government's tax model are and to not be put in a situation where the government announces a model and then says, `We're going off to the polls in three or four weeks,' and the community, the opposition and other interested parties are given just a few weeks to scrutinise the government's model before the electorate is expected to pass judgment on it. I think that displays a contempt for the Australian people, and I do not think that is acceptable. There needs to be far more pressure applied than has been applied to this government, to make it come up with its tax model in time for the public to give it appropriate consideration.There are some furphies around concerning the tax debate: for example, that Labor has back-flipped on the GST since 1985. It ought to be pointed out that since 1985, some 12 years ago now, when the Labor government considered but did not proceed with a proposal to introduce a consumption tax, the debate really has moved on, and that Labor made significant changes to the tax system, thus making a GST unnecessary.In 1985 it was argued that a GST was needed because the income tax base had become too narrow. However, instead of introducing a GST, we attacked the root of the problem by broadening the income tax base. For example, we introduced a capital gains tax to ensure that people who received income in the form of capital gains paid their fair share; we brought in fringe benefits tax to prevent high income earners avoiding their fair share of tax by taking their salary in such perks as school fees, cars, bank loans and the like; we properly taxed, for the first time, income earned overseas; and we significantly rationalised the then wholesale sales tax regime. So the debate really has moved on from where it was back in 1985.When it comes to backflips on the GST, none is more spectacular than Prime Minister Howard's own effort. After resuming the leadership of his party, he said:There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy . . . Never ever.That was said at a Tweed Heads Civic Centre doorstop on 2 May 1995.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—Was that Option C?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I have just explained 1995 to the honourable member—TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—1985!UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Since we debated option C back in 1985, the government moved to broaden the income tax—TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—This is the road to Damascus.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. J.A. Crosio)—Order! The member for Wills has the call. Other members will have the right, during the debate.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I am happy to answer the observations made. Through our changes to capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax, and through the taxing of overseas income, we were able to broaden the income tax base. This is always the task of governments when holes arise in the income tax base. Holes do arise, because there are people with a vested interest in finding and developing them, and it is the task of government to close those holes.The present Treasurer (Mr Costello) has abandoned that task. He knows that a lot of tax is escaping through the use of trusts. He has not cracked down on that form of tax avoidance and, as a result, there are holes in the income tax regime; but it is for the government to fix those properly and directly, rather than to say, `The system is broke and, therefore, we have to move to a GST.' Prime Minister Howard also said, when he was opposition leader, in a press release on 2 May 1995:A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda.They must have been non-core promises.Dr Southcott interjecting—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—We oppose a GST—Dr Southcott interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I call you to order. You have the right to put your name down for the debate. If you do not wish to participate, you will remain silent.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—It is not a question of mounting a scare campaign on the GST; it is the facts about a GST which are scary. We simply cannot see how a GST can be fairly imposed or maintained on low and middle income earners. A GST would have a horrendous impact on small business, the very people whom this government promised they would reduce the red tape for by some 50 per cent.There is no evidence from Europe, or from anywhere else, that it addresses the black economy. Indeed, it is the reverse: people avoid reporting transactions in order to avoid paying GST on them. Above all, there is no evidence of any correlation between a GST and lower unemployment. The government is going to have to come up with much better answers than it has done so far if it is to persuade anyone that this latest attempt to divert attention from its unemployment performance—its lack of performance—has any substance.There has been a lot of breathless overstatement about the supposedly derelict state of the Australian tax system. When people say that the system is broke, as distinct from requiring ongoing repair, they usually mean two related things: the tax mix between income and other taxes is out of kilter, and that income taxes are becoming more and more intolerably burdensome.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—I rise on a point of order. Madam Deputy Speaker, we are discussing a bill which does deal with some state taxes, payroll taxes and so on; but it certainly does not deal with the whole tax system. I would refer the member back to the bill that is in front of us.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I do not think it is a point of order. Given all of the bills that we are taking as cognate legislation, it is a very wide ranging debate. There is no point of order.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—The point that needs to be understood is that the federal system does create a number of financial challenges in the delivery of public services to Australian citizens, and the set of bills that we are discussing endeavours to address that. They demonstrate that where problems arise in relation to the tax system it is for the government to address these directly, as the government is doing with this legislation, rather than saying, `The tax system broke and, therefore, we've got to introduce a GST.'When it comes to taxes on goods and services as a proportion of the overall national tax take, Australia is more or less equal to the average of advanced industrial countries. Our percentage is 30 per cent, whereas the OECD percentage is 32 per cent. On income tax, Australia has a much lower proportion of income tax in the national tax take: Australia has 54 per cent; the OECD average is 61 per cent, taking into account social security payments, which make up 25.9 per cent of the OECD average.At the Commonwealth level, the collection of income tax as a proportion of all Commonwealth taxes has been relatively stable: income tax in fact represents 74 per cent of Commonwealth taxes now compared with 72 per cent back in 1974-75. If we in Australia have a marginally greater emphasis on income tax, that is a legitimate choice. Properly administered income taxes are the fairest taxes of all.Concerning the income tax burden, the facts are that the average personal tax paid by households is the same now as the average over the past 20 years: 16 per cent. The facts are that workers on average earnings now pay the same average rate of tax as 20 years ago: some 24 per cent. The marginal tax rate for average workers is below the OECD average. For Australia, it is 35.5 per cent; that is, 34 and the 1½ per cent Medicare levy. The OECD average is 41.4 per cent. That is the marginal tax rate for average workers. Mr Howard has repeatedly claimed that tax reform is needed because we now pay the top marginal rate at lower earnings than 20 years ago.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—That's not the marginal tax rate.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Let us not forget why this is the case. The top rate is so much lower now because the Hawke and Keating governments cut John Howard's top tax rate from 60 per cent to 47 per cent. That is why it is lower now.XJ6ANTHONYMr Anthony—Everyone is in it; everyone pays it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Again I will remind the members on the government benches that they may participate in the debate; they only have to place their names on the Notice Paper .UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—In response to the interjections, it ought to be pointed out that Australians pay the top rate at $50,000, significantly higher than the average weekly ordinary time earnings, which are now at $36,000, and much higher than average weekly earnings, which are now at $30,000. Sixty-five per cent of all employees earn less than the average weekly ordinary time earnings.It is wrong to imply that Australia is now a high tax country. In fact, compared with like economies, we are a low tax country. Our level of taxation is 8½ per cent of GDP lower than the average of comparable countries, and we pay some $40 billion less than we would if we were taxed at the average levels of other OECD countries. A GST is not necessary to deal with bracket creep; it is something that every government has to respond to sooner or later. Bracket creep is a problem which is a feature of every tax system, and it is one which we addressed when we were in government through the delivery of seven different rounds of tax cuts. If the tax scales today were the same as the ones that we inherited from the coalition in 1983, the government would be collecting around $30 billion more annually.There are challenges in the tax debate. There are challenges in the area of income tax; there are challenges in the area of business taxes; and there are challenges in the area of Commonwealth-state financial relations, to which this bill relates. But we are not prepared to be party to changes which will be overwhelmingly regressive for the majority of Australians and which will set this country back. We believe that a GST is fundamentally unfair to the Australian community, that it will not address the real issues facing Australia—jobs and job security.Let me go through a number of these problems in a little more detail. First, you have the fundamental equity problem. Imposing tax on all items of consumption is inherently regressive. It is common ground, even by the proponents of a GST, that the extension of the consumption tax base to a flat rate GST across all goods and services is, of itself, regressive. It is regressive because the same tax rate is paid by all people on their total consumption—rich as well as poor.In fact, lower income people have a higher proportion of tax burden because they consume a greater proportion of their income than do higher income people. In addition, much of what is currently consumed by lower income people is currently free of sales tax—for example, most rent, food, clothing and utility charges—so a high level of GST is going to be even more unfair. If you are trying to replace all the existing indirect taxes, including payroll tax but excluding fuel taxes, you need a rate of around 15 per cent; if you want to replace all indirect taxes, including the fuel taxes, you have to go up to 20 per cent; and if you want to go to a 10 per cent personal income tax cut as well, that means a rate of over 25 per cent—the higher the GST rate, the worse the impact on low income earners.Indeed, a flat rate GST is unfair. The existing wholesale sales tax is a multiple rate tax, so you have luxury goods like furs and jewellery being taxed at a higher rate of 32 per cent and luxury cars, the genuinely imported cars, being taxed at the highest rate of 45 per cent. This means that the luxury goods currently being heavily taxed under the existing wholesale sales tax regime can be expected to come down in price while the necessities of life are going to go up in price. So a GST will provide an unjustified benefit to the well off who purchase luxuries.Let me give some examples of the ordinary services which, under a GST, will go up in price: funeral costs; child-care costs; visits to the hairdresser; taking your pet to the vet; going to the movies; going to the football; and getting repairs to the washing machine, the toilet, the television or the car. That is how it is going to work: fur coats come down in price; school uniforms go up in price.The second problem is what is described as the compensation now problem. No-one can be guaranteed that he or she will not be worse off at the outset. Most proponents of a GST acknowledge that, to offset the regressive elements of a GST, it is necessary to compensate low income earners by increasing social security pensions and benefits and by altering the income tax scale for those within the tax system. However, designing an effective compensation scheme to ensure that no low or middle income people are made worse off by the introduction of a GST is extraordinarily difficult and, in my view, probably impossible.The third problem is referred to as the compensation in the future problem. No-one can be guaranteed that he or she will not be worse off further down the track. It is not possible to guarantee the integrity of a compensation package over time. Future governments—as we have seen, for example, in New Zealand—may cut back the compensation directly or increase the rate of GST without providing additional compensation. This then delivers a regressive outcome.The fourth problem is increasing rates and decreasing coverage. The international experience of the GST is that, despite assurances to the contrary, the initial rate at which a GST is introduced is inevitably increased over time. Of the 27 OECD member countries which have a GST, 21 have already increased the standard rate of tax from its initial level. In the UK, for example, VAT was initially 10 per cent; now it is 17½ per cent. In New Zealand, GST was initially 10 per cent; now it is 12½ per cent. So much for the idea of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) that this is going to be set in concrete.In addition, over time, governments tend to reduce or eliminate the concessions on certain goods and services which are initially introduced. GST is an easy way for governments to increase the burden of taxation on a community. A small increase in rates will result in a significant increase in revenue. History shows that indirect taxes, once imposed, are rarely, if ever, repealed.Next we have two problems of GST for small business. The first is of becoming an unpaid tax collector. Wholesale sales tax is a relatively easy system to administer and to comply with. There are only around 75,000 registered tax collection points at the moment. Most small businesses are not registered, as they are not wholesalers. Accordingly, they do not need to collect and to remit the wholesale sales tax to the tax office. A GST will require a million additional taxpayers to register and remit the GST on a regular basis. These small businesses are not going to be paid for this tax collecting role.The second problem for small business is high compliance costs. They are going to have initial or transitional compliance costs—and I know that some of them have expressed alarm to me about what this will actually entail—but they will also have ongoing compliance costs. An OECD study called Taxing consumption 1988 found that the smaller firms have costs, in proportion to turnover, more than 30 times those of the biggest. So you will see a comparative disadvantage being suffered by small business.The initial costs include self-education, new equipment, new business systems and any related professional advice. They will vary considerably between businesses, but will inevitably involve considerable time and expense. Examples include new hardware such as cash registers with a GST tax capacity, computer software such as accounting software, new sales dockets and forms to include provision for GST. This is on top of the time that small businesses will need to spend to learn how a GST works and to register with the tax office.The ongoing compliance costs include the time taken for the GST paperwork, other costs of compliance including professional advice, the costs of record keeping for possible GST audits and the costs of being audited. There may also be a cash flow penalty on small business.All of the above costs apply for a GST with few exemptions. The costs of complying with a GST increase further as the number of exemptions increases. In addition, making an error over whether a particular transaction is exempt or not may place the small business in a position of committing an offence and being liable for penalties.The next area I want to deal with is the black economy. A GST does not fix it. It is difficult to make precise estimates of the size of the black economy, but such estimates as there are show that there is absolutely no correlation between a country having a GST and having a smaller black economy. A lot of the black economy involves trade in personal services—home maintenance and the like—as well as the classic evasive activity such as drug dealing. Currently, the income from these services escapes income tax, through non-declaration.Introducing a GST on such services would actually increase the incentive for non-declaration, because you are then evading not only income tax but GST as well. By their nature, many of these services use minimal inputs, so little tax will be raised by a GST on inputs. While it is true that some spending of this income will involve GST being paid, some tax is already paid on this spending through the existing wholesale sales tax and excise systems.The next issue relates to jobs and saving. A GST is not a solution to unemployment. Internationally, there is simply no relationship between consumption taxes and unemployment rates. The United States, for example, does not have a GST but does have one of the lowest levels of unemployment. The United States has an unemployment rate of around five per cent. On the other hand, European Union countries, such as Germany, France, Spain and Italy, all have high rates of unemployment, averaging around 12 per cent, despite having GSTs. Canada introduced a GST in 1991 but its unemployment rate remains high, at 9.1 per cent.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—What about New Zealand?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—It is very popular in New Zealand, I have to say, too.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—They don't care about it.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—Is that right? We will see. A GST is not the answer to improving national saving. There is a wide variation in household savings rates amongst those countries that have consumption taxes. For example, the Netherlands and Belgium have consumption taxes, but while Belgium has the highest household savings rate of the major OECD countries—16½ per cent—the Netherlands has the lowest household savings rate—just 0.2 per cent.One of the final couple of points that I want to mention on this subject is the inflation problem. There would be a very painful transition. The introduction of, for example, a 15 per cent GST would generate an inflationary surge of around five per cent, increasing the current inflation rate from one per cent to six per cent. Interest rates, in turn, would increase and this would have a very adverse effect on family budgets. And there is no guarantee that inflation would fall quickly to its pre-GST level.There is also the competitiveness problem for small business. Almost all small businesses are currently exempt from payroll tax. If you abolish payroll tax, this has some benefit for big business but no benefit for small business. As I indicated before, the compliance costs for a GST as a proportion of small business costs are much higher than those for big business. Together, this would be a double whammy, worsening the competitive position of small business against big business.For all those reasons, GST is a nightmare best avoided. We have a situation where there is a responsibility on governments to protect the tax base. The government is moving in this case to protect the tax base, and the opposition supports this legislation. It is not the job of governments to throw their hands up in the air in despair and say, `Look, there is nothing we can do about it; therefore we're going to have to slug you all with a GST.'12:18:001241Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I was very interested to hear the comments from the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson). In fact, I was surprised when he said he was going to be spending half a hour speaking on the Commonwealth Places (Mirror Taxes) Bill 1998 . It is a very interesting bill which relates to a High Court decision brought down in 1996—and I would like to talk on that later. But there are some comments that he made in this debate that I would like to respond to.To start off, the member for Wills mentioned the fact that this is not a tax on mirrors. That is true—it is not a tax on mirrors. But the tax on mirrors is levied at 22 per cent. When you look at the taxes on items in the bathroom, there is a 22 per cent wholesale sales tax which is levied on cosmetics, shampoo, soap, deodorant, toothpaste, toilet paper, non-medicated mouthwash and spa baths. Mirrors would be taxed at 22 per cent. He says that that is a reasonable system. Constituents in his electorate of Wills could get all those things cheaper. Handbasins, baths, toilets and towels are taxed at about 12 per cent. If you want to find something tax free, you can find a toothbrush and medicated mouthwash. This is the fantastic tax system that we inherited from the Labor Party. Apparently, there are no inconsistencies there at all.The member for Wills also mentioned GST. I thought I was almost in the time tunnel going back to 1993. At present, the coalition is examining options for reform of the tax system which include looking at the option of a broad based indirect tax. But I might ask the member for Wills where was he in 1985 when we had the tax cart and Keating was getting everyone on the tax cart? We had the famous option C to be considered at the tax summit. Option C was a 12½ per cent consumption tax. That was the tax being pushed by the then Treasurer, Paul Keating.When we look at Paul Kelly's The End of Certainty, which tells the whole story of politics in the 1980s, you find something very interesting. The only supporters in cabinet for option C were Paul Keating, Bob Hawke, Kim Beazley, Gareth Evans and Susan Ryan. So the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans) were both supporting a consumption tax.Was the member for Hotham (Mr Crean), who was involved in the ACTU in the mid-1980s, any purer? According to John Edwards's biography of Paul Keating, Crean and Kelty both agreed with the Treasurer's diagnosis and felt there was no other way to go than a broad based consumption tax.That was back in 1985. The wholesale sales tax was brought in in 1930 to combat the Great Depression. The differential rate was introduced by Artie Fadden in World War II so that they could tax luxuries which were non-essential items in World War II. In November 1940, Artie Fadden said:In commending the bill to the favourable reception of honourable members, I would urge that in their consideration of the individual items comprising the respective schedules, they do not lose sight of the fact that what would be a proposal not to be contemplated in times of peace becomes an inescapable necessity in time of war.The member for Wills mentioned fur coats. I am not in favour of fur being used, but what he did not mention are some of the things that are tax free. You can go and buy a Russell Drysdale painting for $800,000 at the latest auction. That is tax free. You can go and buy an antique and that is tax free. The sorts of things that we are talking about are things that were luxuries during World War II.How many of our constituents would have televisions? How many would have cameras? These are the things that are taxed at the luxury rate. The luxury rate of 32 per cent for wholesale sales tax taxes things like video recorders. Almost every household has got a video recorder, televisions, cameras, watches, jewellery—luxury goods. Those are the sorts of thing we are talking about.There are higher levels for things like cars. Every car is taxed at 22 per cent. That is a particular issue in my electorate, which contains Mitsubishi. We manufacture a lot of the cars. Some of them are going overseas; others are remaining within Australia.It is true that our present average weekly earners are only paying 34c in the dollar at the marginal tax rate. Next year they are moving to the second top tax rate. Next year they are moving to 43c. In fact, to be in the top marginal tax rate in the year 2000, you will only have to be on 1.2 average weekly earnings. The burden of our tax system falls heavily on the average weekly earners.I mentioned before the differential rates and the sorts of problems that that has created. You have got court cases all the time which are working out the proper classification of things like cotton buds and cling wrap, toilet paper, facial tissues, frozen yoghurt, mouthwash, model aeroplanes, paint brushes, trade catalogues, safes, scaffolding, power boards, transformers, telephone exchange equipment, pizza dough mixers, take-away foods and beverages. These are the subject of court cases all the time to decide where they fit in terms of the differential rate.The member for Wills mentioned that this was a good decision. What it related to was section 52(i) of the constitution, and the Full Bench of the High Court, with Dawson and Toohey dissenting, said:. . . the Stamps Act so far as it operated to charge the lease with stamp duty was invalid because s 52(i) of the Constitution gave the Commonwealth exclusive legislative power with respect to Commonwealth places . . . It is similar to, but also different from, the August 1997 decision of the High Court, which used, when it was legislated for by the Commonwealth, section 51(ii) as its head of power which allows for taxation but not so as `to discriminate between States or parts of States'. Section 52(i) does give the Commonwealth exclusive power to make laws with respect to Commonwealth places which have been acquired by the Commonwealth.In addressing the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Wills said that this was quite a sensible thing, to actually have things like stamp duty, payroll tax, financial institutions duty and debits tax levied by the Commonwealth and then reimbursed to the states, and we can do that at differential rates. But he thought that was addressing the issue of Commonwealth-state imbalance. It is not. In fact, before the August 1997 decision of the High Court which removed the power of the states to tax excise on petrol, alcohol and tobacco, Australia was the most centralised federation in the world in terms of raising revenue. In fact, it even has a worse degree of vertical fiscal imbalance than centralised states like France. Australia is more centralised in the way it raises revenue in that 80 per cent of all tax revenue is raised by the Commonwealth. Over 46 per cent of state and territory revenue actually comes from state and territory grants from the Commonwealth.Vertical fiscal imbalance began in 1942. It is the brief of the government's Treasury task force and also the government members consultative task force to look at the issue of vertical fiscal imbalance. Labor members do not have any answer to it. They do not have any answer to the wholesale sales tax system. They believe the current sales tax system is quite adequate. You would find people in Labor electorates and people in Liberal electorates who are buying televisions, radios, video recorders and cameras. These are things that are taxed at 32 per cent. There is no difference between people on higher incomes or lower incomes when it comes to the tax rate applying to buying luxury items.It used to be 30 per cent but it went up in the 1993 budget. Remember that budget? Remember that budget when Labor said it was not going to increase taxes and subsequently it increased all the taxes. I will conclude my remarks and allow the Parliamentary Secretary [Cabinet] to the Prime Minister (Mr Miles) to respond.12:28:001243Miles, Chris, MPMr MILESBI4BraddonLP10—in reply—I will try to be very, very brief because I have only got a couple of minutes in summing up. I would like to say that this package of four bills will implement a safety net for each state government in respect of revenues from stamp duty, payroll tax, financial institutions duty and bank accounts debit tax in relation to Commonwealth places in their state. The safety net is necessary following the High Court's Allders decision. The Commonwealth has worked hard with the states to put this package together.I welcome the opposition's statement that it will not be opposing this package of bills. I know it has been a wide-ranging debate on general taxation issues, but summing it up, the Labor Party is talking about the past. What we are doing as a government is talking about the future in regard to taxation. Labor members are always going back to what happened in the past; they are not looking forward to the future, not giving any clear directions to the Australian people about the future. That is what this government is about in regard to taxation reform.I would like to thank the member for Boothby (Dr Southcott) and the member for Wills (Mr Kelvin Thomson) for their contribution to the debate today and I commend all four bills to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1243r4381243Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1244r4431244Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills1244r4381244Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Mr Miles:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—If no member wishes to consider the bill in detail, I will put the report question forthwith. The question is that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Question resolved in the affirmative.Adjournment124410000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being slightly after 12.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.124412:32:001244Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise in this debate to express my concern about the closure of an important educational institution in my electorate of Greenway which has provided a service to migrants that has enabled them to take their rightful place in the Australian community. I refer to the Adult Migrant English Service—AMES—which is to close under the coalition government's slash and burn policies. My concern is for our multicultural community, which will lose a vital service and some 500 AMES teachers in New South Wales, including 25 very experienced teachers operating in Blacktown. Whether these teachers will be used by the new tenderer or not, this move is an unnecessary disruption to their security of employment and continues the practice that has developed under this government of destroying career paths and security of employment for the Australian work force, particularly public servants.The Blacktown office of AMES will close by the end of June. It may then be tenanted by the new privatised service, which will clearly trade on the goodwill created by the public service staff of AMES who have operated there for many years. The sad fact about AMES is that the federal government has cut funding to the New South Wales service by 60 per cent to 65 per cent. The department has now divided New South Wales into five regions, each of which was separately tendered for. AMES was granted preferred provider status in only two of the five regions, which is a disgrace when one considers the accumulated knowledge and experience of the present 500 teaching staff.AMES has provided this magnificent service to refugees and migrants throughout New South Wales for over 50 years and this government, with its ideological push to sell off everything that moves, has shown scant regard for the enormous tradition and service given by these many staff over this period of time. It is an insult to these good people who have accumulated such expertise in counselling in areas such as those dealing with victims of torture and trauma. Does the government care? Apparently not at all.AMES will no longer be able to operate in Auburn, Bankstown, Blacktown, Cabramatta, Campbelltown, Campsie, Fairfield, Liverpool, Parramatta, Rockdale and Wollongong. Of all of these important areas where refugees and migrants go to live, only one is not covered by an ALP federal member. What an indictment that is on the thinking of the government. The decision is destroying a highly regarded state-wide public institution—and for what? It is simply to satisfy the loony tunes of the coalition.A serious matter that has not been properly addressed by the government is the awarding of the tender to the Australian Centre for Languages. It clearly leaves itself wide open to question. When the former head of the service conducted an inquiry into whether the service should be privatised, he recommended it should. Lo and behold, who is the new director of the successful tenderer? Newly arrived migrants and refugees will no longer have access to highly trained and highly qualified teaching services previously enjoyed in New South Wales. Not one extra migrant or refugee will be eligible for English tuition through privatisation; not one extra hour of English will be available for eligible migrants through privatisation.Why did the government do it? The answers, to date, from the government do not seem to add up in any way. All it appears to me is that the government feels the need to give all government work to private enterprise and to ensure that they act on recommendations that are premeditated, as in this case. Clearly this is all about smaller government, a call that we heard many times from them when they were in opposition. In government, they have increased their ministry, sacked the Public Service and privatised large slabs of the department to lessen their responsibility.These concerns being raised by us are genuine. Private monopoly is not necessarily the best way to deliver a public service. The moment we raise the involvement of private providers, the debate becomes one about money and profit. The debate should be about people and education. The bean counters of Treasury should be relegated out of the whole debate. But, of course, this mean-spirited government is about money and profit. The government seems not to have any real feeling for the people they are hurting but are claiming to be helping.124512:35:001245Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—I rise today to pay tribute to a man who has spent most of his life living in my electorate: Joe Crimmings. Joe, last Monday, celebrated his 100th birthday—which is a wonderful achievement. He was born on 2 March 1898 and he has become an icon of Sydney's lower North Shore. Joe has good working-class, historic traditions. Joe has lived a life that may seem very distant, to today's generation. From his earliest days when, at the age of eight, when he took a tumble from the footboard of a cable car in Williams Street through to the publication of his autobiography—which, amazingly, he wrote at the age of 94—like many Australians of his era, Joe has had a deep and abiding love for the colour of life and the intricate parts of life.Of all my discussions, either through the mail or on the occasion that I had the opportunity to meet with Joe, there has always been left with me one line of his that aptly sums up his life: he got on with life and made the best of things throughout those days. It may interest the Labor party members of this house to know that Joe Crimmings was born in Surry Hills to Joseph Patrick Crimmings and Isabel Marion Crimmings, nee Caton—which seems to be pretty good Irish Australian stock.His family moved to Willoughby in the early part of this century. Interestingly, as Joe recounts in his memoirs, at that time a large part of the district consisted of Chinese market gardens, and there was a Chinese temple in Chatswood. Chatswood today has one of the largest Chinese communities in Australia, and I am very proud to represent it in this House. Joe records in his memoirs his fond recollection of the trams terminating at Willoughby, and the fact that a current site of the Channel Nine studios was formerly a dairy and that the entrance to Grace Bros in Chatswood was once a roller skating rink.Joe has worked hard throughout his life—the story of many successful Australians. Like so many of his era, he started work at the very early age of 13 to support his family. At the age of 14, he joined a Pitt Street publishing company and then Goodall and Co., where he worked for 50 years until his retirement in 1962. His memoirs and his contribution to our community will surely not be taken for granted. As Phillip Adams wrote in the preface to Joe's memoirs:I only wish that more elderly Australians would follow Joe's example and commit their memories to paper. Or perhaps to tape or video. Because it is only in this way that their memories will be preserved for the rest of us. Particularly for their families and friends.Stoic of character and never short of a strong opinion, Joe has been an avid writer who has corresponded for 30 years with the Northern District Times on local and national issues. That is how, as federal member for North Sydney, I first came into contact with Joe. He often took up the challenge of stirring up community debate on pertinent and relevant issues. On behalf of the members of the federal parliament and on behalf of the people of the federal electorate of North Sydney, I wish Joe Crimmings a very happy 100th birthday, good health and many years ahead.UNKNOWNHonourable membersHonourable members—Hear, hear!124612:39:001246Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—In the short time allocated to me this afternoon, I would like to discuss the results of the Howard government's disgraceful tendering process for employment services in my electorate and particularly throughout south-western Sydney. If there is one thing we can count on with the Howard government, it is placing its commercial interests above the interests of the community, above the interests of the people that it is meant to represent. That is what it has done with the allocation of contracts for employment services.In my electorate and the surrounding regions, some of the most successful community employment agencies, organisations which have been placing the long-term unemployed into jobs for over 10 years, have now found themselves without contracts for providing employment services. The shame of it all is that, while they may have been unsuccessful, other fly-by-night operators—people of questionable motives, people with little or no understanding of the very specific problems facing the unemployed in south-western Sydney—have not.I refer, of course, to one gentleman in particular, Mr Khadar Roude, and his agency, Employment Interactive. The fact that this gentleman, whose only experience in the way of employment services prior to his successful tender was working as a case manager for a few years with the Islamic Council of New South Wales, was awarded contracts for 12 sites throughout Sydney—the majority in south-western Sydney—still leaves me dumbfounded.This is a man who, at the present time, has no office space—let alone offices—in any of the 12 sites that he has across Sydney: no staff, no infrastructure, and his organisation is unincorporated. This is a man who, at present, does not hold, and has not even applied for—as of today—a licence to operate as an employment agent in New South Wales under the Employment Agents Act 1996. In fact, had he applied, I doubt he would have been successful. To qualify under the act, an organisation has to prove it has sufficient office space, including appropriate lighting, ventilation, furnishings, record storage facilities, accommodation for visitors and a private area for interviews.Even if, just for argument's sake, we can imagine that Mr Roude had the infrastructure in place to begin offering employment advice and service to the unemployed Sydneysiders, does the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) seriously believe Mr Roude is of sound enough character to hold such enormous responsibilities? Mr Roude is currently under investigation by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs for breaching its tendering process guidelines, specifically its rules on collusive tendering and conflicts of interest.Mr Roude, while employed with the Islamic Council of New South Wales, while playing an active role in assisting that organisation in preparing its own employment services tender, allegedly took the information he obtained from them and used it to prepare his own independent tender, undercutting that council's cost proposals and, in that way, making his own tender appear cheaper to the department. This is despite the fact that Mr Roude was asked four times by his work mates at the Islamic Council of New South Wales, in front of witnesses, whether he was preparing his own independent tender—a charge he denied each time.We also have information, which has come to light in this week's Fairfield Champion, that Mr Roude approached the New South Wales state member for Lakemba, Mr Tony Stewart, allegedly under the pretext of obtaining a reference to support the Islamic Council's job tender. In good faith, the MP provided Mr Roude with the letter required. It was only then that Mr Roude allegedly used the document, not to support the Islamic Council's tender but to support his own. As I understand, Mr Stewart has referred this matter to the Commonwealth Ombudsman for investigation.So, despite his lack of organisation, despite the grubby way in which Mr Roude has tricked and manipulated the fine people at the Islamic Council of New South Wales, he has been given the tender for 12 sites across Sydney by Minister Kemp and his department. The minister justifies this gentleman's success by saying:The government has been determined to break out of the traditional club of providers to find the very best people in Australia to help unemployed people. I reiterate `to find the very best people in Australia to help unemployed people'. The minister's logic is: you drop individuals like Sister Mary-Louise of Penrith—a former Penrith Citizen of the Year—and her organisation, which over 13 years has assisted 7,000 unemployed people, with a success rate that has never dropped below 62 per cent; and you give contracts to the likes of Khadar Roude.You drop people like Mr Van Tri Huynh and his group at T&A Skill Care Services from my own area, an agency that has been extremely successful in helping non-English speaking clients—especially those of Vietnamese background—and, I might add, that has been praised continually for it by the government, in a region where unemployment is almost twice the national average. You wipe them and you give the contract to Mr Roude. You throw away organisations with valuable foundations in the communities which they serve. You throw away their staff with years of invaluable expertise and collective experience. For what reason? The minister says it is to help the unemployed people. What rubbish! He is doing it because it is cheaper for his department and it is cheaper for his government. It will cost Australians dearly.The logic behind this whole process is difficult to comprehend. I do not understand it, the people of western Sydney do not understand it, and the legions of unemployed will not forget it. (Time expired)124812:44:001248Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—Today I would like to speak about a visit the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) made to my electorate of Makin on 29 January 1998. During the visit, the Prime Minister was given insight into Australia's aged care at Lutheran Nursing Homes at Hope Valley, which provides high quality care for many aged residents in my electorate. This provided the Prime Minister with an opportunity to meet with residents from the nursing home, the independent living units and the hostel, and to hear first-hand their views on our aged care reforms.The Prime Minister also spent time discussing the latest legislation with the General Manager of Lutheran Nursing Homes, Mr Tim Gray, and with some members of the home staff. I am delighted to report that hundreds of people turned out to greet the Prime Minister. They were saying that they thought he was a tremendous Prime Minister, that he was honest and caring and that they were proud to have him as the Prime Minister of Australia.During his visit, the Prime Minister witnessed the state-of-the-art care provided for residents at Lutheran Nursing Homes in a very home-like and caring atmosphere. Mr Gray and his staff should be commended for their hard work and dedication to the facility's residents.Also during the Prime Minister's time in Makin, he visited the Avago Skills Training Centre, which is now the venue for a work for the dole scheme which was successfully tendered for by the Tea Tree Gully Development Board. This board is now working in partnership with the Tea Tree Gully Council, who have provided some funding towards materials for the project. The Avago Skills Training Centre have made the workshop and a trainer-supervisor available for the scheme, and all three organisations should be congratulated on their commitment to the youth in our local community.These work for the dole scheme participants will be building bus stop shelters for the local area which will obviously be used and appreciated by many in the Makin community. This aspect of the scheme highlights the Prime Minister's commitment to mutual obligation, an aspect which is critical in today's society.Also in attendance at the Avago Skills Training Centre was a group of students from the Salisbury East High School who wrote to the Prime Minister in support of the work for the dole scheme. These students felt that the concept of work for the dole was a great idea and one of the best proposals by the government to date. The students also felt that this scheme would, without doubt, be great for the self-esteem of young unemployed people, while also providing employment opportunities through the work experience and the skills gained through this scheme. In fact, three people from this work for the dole scheme have already gained jobs.Mr Deputy Speaker, you would also be pleased to note that in Makin we are very excited about the work for the dole scheme because, sadly, as the Prime Minister stated during his visit, youth unemployment is still too high. I believe a certain percentage of underlying structural unemployment will always be part of the economy due to the role of technology, changing roles of women in the work force, and some aspects of industrial relations that still need changing, as well as the training and literacy requirements.On a lighter note, I would like to inform the Main Committee that I had the pleasure of presenting the Prime Minister with a scarf and tie from the two best AFL football clubs in the country: the Adelaide Crows and Port Adelaide Power. I asked the Prime Minister to take back the message that not only is South Australia the best state in the best country in the world in which to live but also we have the best football teams in the AFL: the reigning premiers and the AFL's newest club, who in 1997 proved they will be a force in the competition for years to come.The Prime Minister's visit to Makin demonstrates the government's commitment to providing employment and training for our youth and also better, fairer and more equitable aged care for our ageing Australian population. I was particularly proud to show the Prime Minister what a wonderful, integrated team is behind two aspects of our community critical to the work for the dole scheme in Makin and the state-of-the-art care provided for our nursing home residents.124912:49:001249Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise today to speak on an issue that is of great concern to me and to a growing number of my constituents. I wish to express my great concern about the way the government is negotiating the current multilateral agreement on investment. There is a veil of secrecy around the government's handling of these negotiations. While the draft test of the MAI is publicly available, the government's negotiating process is anything but public.Not surprisingly, the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) has leapt to conclusions of conspiracy and cover-up. The member for Oxley's paranoia and mistrust of government processes is so extreme, it would not surprise me if she suspected the government of implanting silicon chips in people's brains. Possibly these chips send out impulses that make you believe in your imminent assassination and urge you to record your final words on video.Rather than deride the role of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, as the member for Oxley has done, I support the call by the shadow minister for foreign affairs to refer the draft agreement to the committee immediately. I urge the government to call for public hearings on the possible implications of the MAI for all aspects of Australian life. This is not a treaty we should be rushing to finalise. It is far too important, having the potential to affect every aspect of Australian life.The treaty has the potential to homogenise the world in the image of transnational corporations. Globalisation already poses a major threat to the individuality of nations and peoples all over the world. In thousands of years, when archaeologists dig up the remains of our civilisation, what will they make of the shiny golden arches found in dig sites all over the planet—possibly the existence of a religious cult so powerful that it dominated the world? In fact, this may seem more plausible than a fast food chain so big and so all-encompassing that it monopolised food service markets in every corner of the globe.But multinational organisations such as Coca-Cola, Sony, Ford, Microsoft, Shell and IBM already pervade the lives of people all over the world. If the MAI proves to give multinational corporations even more power to smother and take over smaller companies in the nations in which they operate, then it should be of grave concern to all Australians.The MAI may not affect Australia in this way, but it is very hard to be sure unless we have an open public process of input into what exceptions and safeguards the government is negotiating. The MAI must not threaten labour rights, or environmental and social justice standards. It must not make it possible for our cultural identity to be moulded in its image. It is essential that the government protect core ILO standards and retain the legislative power to regulate foreign investment in a way that favours Australian business rather than allows it to be eaten up. I note that the trade union advisory committee of the OECD shares these concerns about the MAI in general.Certainly, foreign investment in Australia by multinationals can have positive effects for the economy. However, once it is established, the threat of withdrawal can be used to downgrade workers' wages and conditions. It is happening already all over the world, and under the MAI the power of these transnationals may be even greater unless strong and secure exemptions and safeguards are negotiated. Given the government's record on industrial relations, I am very worried about the outcome of its negotiations. I am also worried about the potential impact, in stopping Australia from having a decent industry policy.As I commented earlier, our cultural identity is also threatened by increasing globalisation. Australia's film and television production sector is of vital importance to our cultural identity and is acclaimed internationally for its efficiency and quality. Although film and television content rules are reported to be among the exemptions to the MAI, the exemptions may only be for a limited time before they are removed.This would pose a significant threat to an industry that is already in a David and Goliath situation with, mainly, American production houses and distributors. Australian films occupy just under 10 per cent of the cinema box office in Australia. However, if the MAI gives foreign investors in the film and television industry national treatment, we may be forced to give up the local content rules completely. We would simply not have an Australian film industry.I reiterate my call for the Australian government to open the negotiating process to public scrutiny. The labour rights and cultural identity of Australians must not be undermined by the MAI. Furthermore, all Australians should have the opportunity to be informed and express an opinion in the final draft of this process.125012:54:001250Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The member for Grayndler (Mr Albanese) has just highlighted a number of reasons why the Howard government convened the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. I can inform the House that this weekend there will be advertisements placed by that committee calling for public submissions, and I invite the member for Grayndler to talk to his mates in the trade union movement to submit some of those comments to the committee for consideration. We have an open process in treaties. Unlike the previous government's approach, people can be involved.I wish to turn to a matter involving residents in my electorate, particularly in the suburbs of Wishart and Rochedale. They are feeling betrayed by the Brisbane City Council's Soorley administration because of its failure to oversee properly the Brisbane landfill which is known colloquially as the Rochedale Dump.Lord Mayor Soorley in fact campaigned against this dump when he promised to stop it if elected back in 1991. That he failed to deliver is part of the anger that many in my area will never lose about this. That the state Labor government at the time also could have stopped the dump but chose not to because they saw political advantage in the dump going ahead was shabby—`whatever it takes' certainly applied there.That the Atkinson Liberal administration in City Hall actually proposed and approved this so-called `state of the art' dump is a fact. They did so despite the clear local concerns represented by local councillors Graham Quirk and Graeme McDougall, now the member for Griffith, and supported by my own concerns as a representative of the Liberal Party grassroots in the local area.Ironically, both Councillor Quirk and the member for Griffith were re-elected to Brisbane City Council in 1991 and Lord Mayor Atkinson was not. This certainly says something about never losing the importance of representing your constituents first and foremost. It is a principle which I know the Liberal and National parties follow, but it is a principle that those opposite certainly do not have. The Labor Party has a clear `party first, constituents second' approach. In fact, Labor even threatens you with expulsion if you speak out against the party. Look what is happening to Anne Scott in Oxley.Lord Mayor Soorley is adding to his failure to stop the dump by failing to ensure proper standards are maintained. Residents who live in the vicinity of the dump at Rochedale have made numerous complaints about environmental matters over a considerable period of time. There has been concern that the dump's lining may have been compromised, allowing leaching into the watertable. There have been dust and noise concerns. Residents along Kessels Road and Mt Gravatt Capalaba Road know of the increase in truck traffic as compacted rubbish is trucked to Rochedale.But the biggest concern is smell. The licence for the dump prohibits any release of noxious or offensive odours beyond the boundaries of the dump. The city council has sought, though, to amend these licence conditions relating to environmental nuisance and release of noxious or offensive odours beyond the boundary of the dump. They have also put to the state government a draft environmental management plan about how to minimise the offensive odours.The application and the draft plan were found wanting, for substantial reasons, by the state coalition government. I welcome the commitment to high standards by the state minister, Brian Littleproud, and also the local focus which state member Frank Carroll has consistently displayed on this issue. I join with them and local councillors Graham Quirk and Michael Caltabiano in calling on Brisbane Lord Mayor Soorley to get on with the job he is supposed to be doing.Councillor Soorley is fond of spending ratepayers' money on massive overseas world tours. As Channel 7 found out last year, his European sojourn was not so well supported by authorities he was supposedly off to visit. Liberal opposition leader June O'Connell rightly labelled him `Jetset Jim'—and the ratepayers foot the bill. Instead of tripping around the world, Jetset Jim would be wise to address council matters, like mowing the parks, fixing up the potholes, cleaning out the stormwater drains, which seem to always clog when the summer rains come and cause flooding in my electorate.Jetset Jim would better serve the people of Brisbane if he gave up trying to out point score state and federal Labor leaders over Wik and got on with the job that he is supposed to be doing. He did himself great discredit the other week when he politicised the Australia Day citizenship ceremony at City Hall. I know this because over 1,000 people supported my criticism of him at the event over his misleading and party political conduct at what should have been a nonpartisan celebration for 680 new Australians and their supporters.Many people in the city of Brisbane rightly believe that Councillor Jim Soorley has lost the plot. Jetset Jim has a slogan about liveability in Brisbane. It applies generally though to inner suburbs, where he lives. Jetset Jim does not see the liveability of the residents of Wishart and Rochedale as a high priority, and the Brisbane City Council does not seem to have the practical policies needed to address the concerns of residents around the Rochedale dump, a dump which Soorley said he would never allow. The reason the practical approach is missing is simply because there is no practical focus from the leadership at City Hall.Jetset Jim Soorley earns a prime ministerial size salary. But while, in his mind, he might see it that particular way, he is not the Prime Minister. In fact, his many failures over the Rochedale dump provide ample example that he is proving to be a failure as lord mayor. (Time expired)Main Committee adjourned at 12.59 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing1253The following answers to questions were circulated:1253(Question No. 2414)24141253Campbell, Graeme, MPMr CampbellCF4KalgoorlieIND00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 23 October 1997:Will the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Agreement allow a New Zealand commercial pilot's licence and instructor's rating to be used in Australia; if so, when will the Agreement be operational.1254Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Arrangement (TTMRA), a person who is registered to practise an occupation in New Zealand is entitled to practise an equivalent occupation in Australia. The TTMRA will therefore allow for a New Zealand commercial pilot's licence and instructor's rating to be used in Australia on the basis of equivalence. The proposed Arrangement requires individuals possessing such licences, and wishing to utilise them in the other country, to register with the aviation authority of the country concerned. It is anticipated that the Arrangement will become effective from 1 May 1998.