1998-03-233816REPS125501998-03-23Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. I. McC. Sinclair) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous125512:31:001255Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALLPK6SwanLP10—I wish to seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is granted.PK6Randall, Don, MPMr RANDALL—In the adjournment debate on 12 March I made statements in this House regarding the member for Holt (Mr Gareth Evans) and Ms Cheryl Kernot which were not correct and which were personally offensive to them. I wish to confirm and restate my unreserved apology in this House to both Ms Kernot and the member for Holt, and to the other members of this House for my statement.12:32:001255Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANSVD4HoltALP00—I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to make a short statement on the same subject.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is granted.VD4Evans, Gareth, MPMr GARETH EVANS—The ugly and untrue words used under cover of privilege by the member for Swan (Mr Randall) to directly attack Cheryl Kernot, and by innuendo to pervert the nature of my friendship with her, have had their effect. They have been repeated hundreds of times already in the print and electronic media and no doubt will be repeated many times more.Although roundly condemned by nearly every commentator in the country, they have also been repeated by every commentator in the country. They have acquired the currency that muck always acquires. Nothing I said at the time or could say again now can possibly redress that balance. But let me at least put on the parliamentary record the few simple, and I hope very clear, words that I have already put on the public record, namely just these: what the member for Swan said was totally baseless, beneath contempt and a disgraceful abuse of parliamentary privilege. It takes more than an apology to heal the hurt, particularly to our families, that this sort of performance causes.Mr Speaker, this has been a very sorry incident, not only for Cheryl Kernot, me and our respective families, but for the standing and credibility of this Australian parliament. I have experienced or heard nothing like it in my 20 years in this parliament and I hope that no-one else has to experience anything like it ever again.1255Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The House notes the remarks of the member for Swan (Mr Randall) and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Gareth Evans). The issue reminds each of us of the great force of the privilege of freedom of speech which is accorded the members of this parliament. The standing orders and practices of the House impose certain limits on the ability of members in the exercise of this privilege and I draw your attention to those parts of the standing orders commencing at standing order 75.I remind the House, however, that there is much more to the responsible exercise of this privilege than merely complying with the technical requirements of the standing orders and practices of the House. In using the opportunities they enjoy, all members are under an obligation to ensure that, as well as observing the rules of the House, they also apply very careful judgment, especially when making remarks about those who are not members of the House. They should take all reasonable steps to satisfy themselves as to the accuracy of any comments they may wish to make and also express themselves in appropriately temperate terms.The House has established a procedure allowing those reflected upon adversely to apply to have a response published in the parliamentary record. Members will recognise, however, that whatever its merits such a procedure cannot undo nor negate the harm that may be done by the careless or cavalier use of the privilege of freedom of speech with all the publicity that may sometimes flow from that.12:35:001255Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLP10—I seek your indulgence very briefly, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Indulgence is granted.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—I was in the chamber on the night that the member for Swan (Mr Randall) made these comments and was suitably offended. I have spoken briefly with the member for Swan since. He has confirmed with me that he acted entirely alone; the exact words he used were that the criticisms that he has received since were self-inflicted. I would like to place on the parliamentary record that the government from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) down—UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Where are they?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Adelaide has the call.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—I am putting on the parliamentary record, Mr Speaker, that every member of the government from the Prime Minister down has dissociated themselves from the comments of the member for Swan.12:36:001256Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I seek your indulgence, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I will allow one more. We are not going to have a debate on the issue.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—There are two more. She was in the House.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Batman was also in the chair at the time.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—As you have clearly indicated, Mr Speaker, the member for Adelaide (Ms Worth) was on chamber duty on behalf of the government and I was on chamber duty on behalf of the opposition that evening. For the accuracy of the record and in response to a grievous misrepresentation of the case in an article written by Alan Ramsey in the Sydney Morning Herald of last Wednesday, I want to make it very clear to this House that when the remarks were made I had an exchange of words with the member for Adelaide, in the course of which I rigorously indicated our opposition—if anything our violent opposition—to the statements by the member for Swan (Mr Randall).At the conclusion of proceedings that evening I also had a similar discussion with the member for Sturt (Mr Pyne). I might also say that in the course of the member for Swan's remarks I challenged you from the chair—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Hansard does not show that.10000Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSON—The Hansard might not show it, but you will recall that I made a statement along the lines of, `By George, we are not going to cop this type of comment.' The ABC radio of the next day also shows the member for Batman being called to order by you, the Speaker. So, for the purpose of the accuracy of the record from the opposition's point of view, on two occasions in the course of that afternoon I challenged the government, in the form of the member for Adelaide and, at the end of proceedings, I challenged the member for Sturt. I also challenged you as the Speaker from the chair, and the ABC recording will show the member for Batman being called to order. I make the point this afternoon that I would have thought that if the government had been offended by those statements the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and every minister would have been in the House today to hear the apology and to reinforce it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I might make the point to the honourable member for Batman that if any member wishes to raise a point of order they do so by rising in their place. They do not do it by interjection across the floor of the House.12:39:001256Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—On what basis do you wish to rise?R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—On indulgence, I wish to make a personal explanation on the same matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I do not know that you have any status to make a personal explanation. I will give you indulgence, but I do not expect every member of the House who is here to rise on indulgence.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—I was also named, along with the member for Batman (Mr Martin Ferguson), in the Sydney Morning Herald on Wednesday, 18 March, in an article by Alan Ramsey in which he suggested:Nobody, including either of Kernot's two Labor colleagues present, Albanese and Martin Ferguson, protested—and it goes on. I wish to refute any suggestion that there were no objections raised by me or the member for Batman. I am sure the member for Adelaide (Ms Worth) would confirm that I interjected across the chamber towards her and that I also made interjections to you, Mr Speaker, as I found the comments of the member for Swan (Mr Randall) quite offensive, as would any decent human being.12:39:001257Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, on indulgence—I will be brief—I was also in the chamber and I just want to make the point, as you alluded to in your statement, that the standing orders do not provide adequate protection for such an attack. I certainly interjected as vigorously as my other colleagues who were in the chamber, and I do take exception to the article Alan Ramsey wrote suggesting that we were deaf, dumb and mute whilst that speech was being given.Committees12571257125712:40:001257Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, I present the interim report of the committee entitled Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1996-97 , together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—This is the fifth report of the committee in this parliament and, yet again, I am pleased to say that it is a unanimous report. This interim report addresses aspects of monetary policy and prudential supervision discussed between the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia and the committee at a public hearing on 6 November last year.The committee's work on the Reserve Bank is one of its most important tasks and one which generates considerable public interest. The appearances of the Reserve Bank before the committee are an important mechanism of accountability and transparency of the bank's conduct of monetary policy. That policy is operating well, with many of the economic problems that were previously of concern having been eliminated or brought under some reasonable control.The RBA considers the major outstanding problem to be the level of unemployment—a matter of great concern to us all. It predicted some further slow progress in reducing unemployment over the next year and reiterated that, while monetary policy would play a part in achieving that reduction, in the long run its part would be only minor. Structural changes will also be important.The bank reported, like all central banks, that it remained sensitive to wage settings. The committee recommends that the bank evaluate its expectations of safety net wage decisions against actual living wage claim outcomes. The committee also recommends that the RBA and the Australian Bureau of Statistics assess the changing significance of the contribution of the executive salaries component to the average weekly ordinary time earnings.The committee's November hearing with the bank was very timely, coming just after the onset of the currency crisis in Asia. The hearing provided valuable insights into the bank's thinking on those crucial issues at that time. The committee also looked at the potential impact of the Asian monetary crisis. The governor gave a big tick to the government, stating:We are in a much better position to handle this financial instability than we have been at any stage, I think, in the last quarter of a century.Much more will be said about that matter at our May hearing with the Reserve Bank, particularly with respect to the impact on unemployment. On the prudential side, the deputy governor reported that the RBA has detected some early warning signs of declining bank lending practices. While the RBA is more positive about improvements in bank lending to small business than it has been in the past, the committee is not quite so optimistic, and we will be looking closely at this issue again.Other important matters addressed by the committee were the bank's gold sales last year, perceptions of conflict of interest of RBA board members, cheque clearance procedures, the real time gross settlement system, the `year 2000 problem', the new Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and central bank cooperation.The regional impact of competition reform within the various sectors, including the financial sector, was addressed in several of the committee's recent reports. In the recent response of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) to the committee's report last year on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the government agreed to a study of the economic impact on, and the benefits to, rural and regional Australia resulting from competition reforms. The Productivity Commission is to undertake that study. The financial sector will no doubt be addressed and I will be looking for the RBA's views on this matter at our May hearing.In undertaking this review, the committee appreciates the assistance provided by the Reserve Bank; our adviser, Phil Hanratty; and the secretariat staff, Chris Paterson, Bev Forbes and Belynda Zolotto. I would also like to thank all members of the committee for their hard work at the public hearing and for their contributions to this interim report. I commend the report to the House.12:45:001258Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNP10—I rise to endorse the report given by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, the member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), and to make some comments on the report of the committee on the Reserve Bank. First of all I would like to highlight some of the areas that the Reserve Bank focused on, particularly the crisis in Asia. There was certainly a great deal of discussion on the impact that it would have on Australia and, more importantly, what the impact would be on the Australian economy regarding north Asia. One of the critical concerns of the Reserve Bank was to see what type of slowdown there might be in South Korea and in Japan because they are major customers of our raw primary produce. In the report the Reserve Bank also highlighted the effect the fiscal policies have had in the last couple of years, suggesting that they have laid a very good foundation for Australia to buffer some of the effects of what is happening in Asia and particularly in South-East Asia.I would like to focus, though, on some of the measures because the report was done last year and there have been a number of changes, particularly for our most northern neighbour, Indonesia. It is important to note that since that report was handed down the currency has been in a free-fall in Indonesia. This time last year Indonesia had an economy with a 240 billion GDP and with foreign debt of 140 billion. Since the fall in the rupiah, whilst the foreign debt has stayed at 140 billion, the actual size of the Indonesian economy has shrunk to around 33 to 40 billion from 240 billion. So the currency crisis has precipitated an economic crisis.The Reserve Bank was mindful of the actions taken by the IMF with the package not just to Indonesia but also to countries like Thailand and South Korea. But in the case of Indonesia I note the Reserve Bank has been a lot more moderate than the IMF. I think it is the opinion of this government and, I would conclude, of the opposition that Indonesia is a slightly unique case and that a great amount of caution needs to be exercised with the IMF in order to preserve some of the social fabric in that country.I am also very glad to see that, in Indonesia, President Suharto has ruled out pegging the rupiah and instead has come up with a five per cent currency band, which I think will give a lot more comfort to the international community and particularly to the IMF, the World Bank and the Reserve Bank. Australia has committed funds to that package, for which there are two tranches. There is $20 billion from Indonesia's own international reserves; there is another $23 billion which is from the IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank; and our $1 billion with several other countries.It is considered to be particularly important that the Indonesian economy does not suffer unduly because in Australia we could see massive dumping, particularly of primary produce, onto our local market, which would destabilise it. Also, it is important to maintain a fair degree of flexibility with the IMF because there are over 200 million Muslims living in that country and the last thing we want to see are food shortages or, potentially greater, social problems, particularly in a lot of those islands outside Java itself.I note that the Reserve Bank explained to the committee the role of the Australian government in our packages to Thailand and to South Korea. It is important that the public know that those packages go hand in hand with those of other OECD member countries, particularly the United States and Japan. With Thailand and South Korea, the funds we are giving are not gifts or grants—they are actually loans. They are currency swaps, backed in US dollars, and those currency reserves will be banked in New York and some other central banks.I would also like to highlight that, along with the statement that the Reserve Bank made, there have been a number of positive changes in Australia subsequent to Wallis. As the Reserve Bank articulated, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority is now coming into place, together with the Australian Securities Investment Commission and the Financial Sector Advisory Council, which should place Australia in a very good position in relation to our financial markets. To capitalise on the crisis that is happening in Asia, perhaps we can emulate what is happening in London now in relation to financial markets where, in the financial sector alone, 25 per cent of the British GDP is now coming from the finance sector. Australia has a very good opportunity with these new regulatory regimes, with good fiscal policy and with sovereign security in Australia to maybe prosper from some of this Asian crisis. I commend the report to the House.12:50:001259Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I too rise to endorse the comments of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, the member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), and to add also that this report is a very important avenue of accountability and transparency for the Reserve Bank of Australia. It does provide the parliament, the financial sector and the com munity at large with some valuable insights into the way in which the RBA conducts its monetary policy activities and the basis for those decisions.While I am pleased with the report, I would like to bring to the attention of the House one particular issue which I believe may require further scrutiny. That goes to the RBA's comments on the matter of wage settings, about which they said:Wages are always going to be the biggest structural difficulty for Australia because . . . we are trying to return to a low inflation growth economy like we had in the fifties and sixties, after two decades of high inflation, and at the same time as trying to do it, we are actually going through a once in a century change to the wage setting structure in Australia.The RBA expressed disappointment:. . . that earlier signs of slowing in growth of Australian labour costs do not appear to have continued, judging from the most recent data . . . There are a couple of interesting points about labour costs that do deserve scrutiny. While average weekly ordinary time earnings increased by 1.6 per cent in the quarter to August, aggregate wages have continued to rise about one per cent per quarter.The RBA suggested that the trend decline in private sector wage growth had come to an end, despite underlying consumer price inflation running at 1.5 per cent, producer price increases at a similar rate and a flat demand for labour. In its February 1998 RBA bulletin, the RBA states:Executive salaries, according to the Cullen Egan Dell survey, recorded their largest quarterly rise for more than seven years in the December quarter, returning the annual rate of growth to over 6 per cent.It is good to see that the RBA recognises that growth in executive salaries is an issue of concern. It states that it remains `stubbornly high' and that it is `increasingly unrelated to trends in business conditions'.This is significant because we have seen a great deal of negative comment in the media by this government about wage claims by the ACTU for the lowest paid workers. The public needs to be informed that, while they are expected to show significant wage restraint even if they are on very low wages, there has been much less criticism by this government about the massive increases in executive wage rises.The RBA made some fairly controversial comments in early 1997 about the effect of the safety net decision on low paid workers and in light of this the committee recommended that the bank evaluate its expectations against actual living wage claim outcomes. Recommendation 1 was:That the Reserve Bank of Australia measure the actual impact of living wage claim outcomes against the Bank's expectations of what it would be in terms of the comments the Bank made at the time.Recommendation 2 was:That the Reserve Bank of Australia and the Australian Bureau of Statistics assess how significant a component executive salaries is of average weekly ordinary-time earnings.The bank stressed the link between wage increases and employment, noting that:. . . Management says, `The thing that worries us is not the wage rate per person but the wage bill,' and that they can keep the wage bill down by reducing the size of their work force. That sort of environment is not conducive to employment growth . . .I am confident that this committee recognises the significant impact on the wages bill of highly paid executives who do gain significant increases in their wages. A couple of per cent wage increase on the average weekly earnings of $560 a week comes to a lot less money than a couple of per cent on maybe $3,000 a week that many executives are paid. The bank owes it to the community to take a broad approach to the cost of labour. I would hope that it does fulfil the recommendations of the committee and that it is able to provide both the committee and the community with further information about proposed wage increases.I would like to endorse the sentiments of the chairman in thanking all those active on the committee secretariat in preparing this report and, once again, thanking the members of the committee who typically acted in a most diligent and forthright manner in coming to what is once again another unanimous report produced by this committee.12:55:001260Martin, Stephen, MPMr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—The report of the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration, Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1996-97 , that we are debating this afternoon is a very significant one because it focuses on a number of issues involving the Reserve Bank of Australia and examines its annual report for 1996-97. In my brief contribution I wish to dwell on two particular matters: firstly, the Asian economic crisis and the comments made by the Reserve Bank and the member for Richmond (Mr Anthony) and, secondly, small business lending.I cannot but help suggest to the member for Richmond that I am not as optimistic as he is that perhaps Australia will not feel the full brunt of the Asian economic crisis in a much more deleterious way than has been experienced to date. One only has to look in the Australian press today, the Sydney Morning Herald, for example, to see the suggestion that something like 5,000 jobs in Australian tourism in New South Wales alone are in jeopardy because of the downturn being caused directly by the Asian economic crisis. The flow-on effect that that is going to have on small businesses should not be underestimated.In my travels throughout Australia as the shadow minister I have seen that the Asian economic crisis is impacting. It is having a major effect on small business and tourism operations. The concerns the Reserve Bank of Australia is bringing to our attention should not be treated with anything other than great sympathy. In a short period of time—over the next several months—as a result of the economic crisis there will be some real implications and ramifications—for our near neighbours, in particular—which will be felt in Australia.On the matter of small business, I draw the attention of the House to the section on bank lending and bank margins on pages 16 and 17 of the report. I cannot agree with the comments contained there from members of the Reserve Bank's Small Business Advisory Panel. They say:. . . they are generally content with both the availability of bank lending and the current levels of interest rates . . .Table 2.1 on page 16 shows that in March 1995 the small business variable rate loans, that is the margin over the cash rate, was 5.1 per cent. In September 1997 it is 5.1 per cent. How can any small business advisory committee say that they are satisfied with the actual rate of the margin over the cash rate for small business when it has not changed? In fact, between March 1995 and 1997 it started to trend down in the course of the last government's tenure in this place and started to trend up with the change in government. Yet the government constantly says that it is looking after small business and will put pressure on the banking industry to do something about it. The evidence that we have seen as a committee does not lead one to the same conclusion.In the coming hearings that the committee is going to have in May, which the chairman referred to a little earlier, it is important that this is one issue that we pursue fairly carefully. There is no doubt that if small business wish to seek finance—funding at the lowest possible margin or a loan where they do not have to mortgage everything that they own—then we have to try to provide the economic wherewithal and the broader economic settings in Australia to enable that to happen.I know that many of the larger banks in this country have been particularly concerned about getting into business lending, particularly for small business. Housing lending has been a priority although there has been some competition in that area from Aussie Home Loans and RAMS. We saw the Treasurer (Mr Costello) stand up in this place last year promoting Aussie Home loans, which had said that they were going to get into small business lending. But it has not eventuated—certainly not to the extent that it was being promoted by the Treasurer of this country. It is the four majors and the regional banks that are still responsibility for the majority of lending to small businesses. They are still charging way above the margins that are being charged on housing loans. There is a huge risk weighting applied to those loans and in many cases it means that the livelihood of people who are in small business or who would like to enter small business is being challenged.The issue on lending and bank margins for small business is one that needs to be carefully reviewed. As is pointed out on page 17 of our report the Reserve Bank noted that:. . . the 5.1 percentage point Australian margin over the cash rate that applies to small business loans in Australia, is higher than figures in the United States and the United Kingdom.If we are going to be genuinely competitive and provide an environment that sustains small business then we have to look at issues like bank lending rates and margins charged to small business. I simply ask the banks themselves to look at that and not require so much tight security on small business. If small business is going to create jobs in Australia, give them the freedom to do so.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wannon wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?1261Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member will have leave to continue speaking with when the debate is resumed.1261126113:01:001261Grace, Ted, MPMr TED GRACEZG4FowlerALP00—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report, incorporating a dissenting report, on the visit of the Defence Subcommittee to Sydney Harbour foreshores Defence properties on 14 November 1997, together with the minutes of the proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.ZG4Grace, Ted, MPMr TED GRACE—Almost since the arrival of the First Fleet in Port Jackson, Defence has played a major role in development of the Sydney Harbour foreshores. The current site of the Opera House, for instance, on Bennelong Point was initially a military fort, and military occupancy on Middle Head dates back to 1801. To a large extent, military establishments have contributed heavily to the current shape of the harbour, its foreshores and environs.In many instances, that occupation has been beneficial. Military tenancy on North, South and Middle Heads, Georges Heights, and Woolwich has protected those areas from the last century of encroachment by civilian developers. The product of this fortunate occurrence has been the harbour that residents of Sydney are so fortunate to have—with headlands naturally vegetated, and now undergoing transition in many cases to become part of the Sydney Harbour National Park.In addition, military occupation of those sites has also left a legacy of history—a heritage of military construction dating back almost to the time of first settlement. The headlands of both North and Middle Heads are worked with tunnels, and gun emplacements lie half-hidden over the headlands. In several cases, this construction dates back over a century. For a young country, this is an important source of history. In a way, this is almost our `Tower of London'.But now the time has arrived when the current strictures on Defence funding has forced the Department of Defence to rationalise its land holdings. The Department does not readily give up prestige, inner-city, harbour-front sites on Middle Head, Garden Island, North Head and Neutral Bay, and treasured heritage mansions such as `Tresco', with their long military history. Defence has been forced to make some hard decisions, and has determined that these sites must be sacrificed in the name of rationalisation. Through the proceeds of sale from these properties, Defence is able to finance relocation of military units to sites in often less salubrious surroundings further north, where they may better contribute to Australian security. In some instances, the proceeds of sale will be used almost entirely to meet the cost of remediation of the site, to rid maintenance sites of up to a century of accumulated industrial contamination.Many residents of Sydney are currently concerned at this disposal action. This is understandable. The past century or so of benevolent tenancy by the Australian Defence Force has given a number of privileged harbourside residents an undemanding neighbour, allowing special access to the headlands and harbour foreshores.The Defence Subcommittee was also concerned at what might be lost, were the Department of Defence to suddenly abandon this land, which contributes so much to the nature of Sydney Harbour, giving free reign to profit-driven development. This was the reason for the committee's visit to a number of Defence properties in November last year. The committee sought to determine whether this disposal would cause irreparable damage to one of the most beautiful harbours in the world—I might say, the most beautiful harbour in the world. This report gives their findings.In almost all cases examined by the committee, Defence has consulted closely with local community groups, and the proposed developments are sensitive to environmental concerns. Where construction is proposed, to provide the funding which makes the disposals economically viable for Defence, that construction is restricted to areas currently occupied by Defence infrastructure. In many cases, Defence also proposes to revegetate large areas, or increase open space provisions beyond what is currently in place. Under Defence's current development plans, unattractive and contaminated industrial sites, such as Cockatoo Island, and HMAS Platypus at Neutral Bay, will be cleaned up, and access will be returned to the public.Some local groups have made clear their disapproval of Defence's disposal option. This is also understandable, as some privileged residents may lose the advantage of some views or open space. However, the committee believes the planned disposals will not result in a blemish to the harbour foreshores, nor cause loss of the character of the harbour. Considered collectively, the planned developments and associated remediation work will improve the appearance of the harbour environs. As some development is necessary to make the disposal viable to Defence, the committee believes the proposed option offers a generally satisfactory compromise.The only area where the committee was critical of Defence's planning is in its current provisions for protection of some military heritage sites, particularly on Middle Head. The committee was concerned that some areas of irreplaceable heritage value may be lost through neglect under current Defence planning. Some sites on land already transferred to the Sydney Harbour National Park are already being damaged by overgrowth and vandalism in areas where the state government has been unable to adequately preserve and maintain them. This is an aspect of the impending disposals where the committee recommends urgent action, at the federal level, if this is needed.I am also aware that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is considering use of the Federation Fund to purchase a number of these Defence properties as a gift for public use. Should he reach that decision, this would address the interests of the local residents unsatisfied with Defence's development plans. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)13:06:001263Bradford, John, MPMr BRADFORDFT4McPhersonIND10—I am, of course, a member of the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I actually went on this particular visit although, I might observe, not many members of the committee did. Having had a close look at what was happening, I went away with the feeling that all was not as it appeared or, more importantly—as I said in the dissenting report that I have tabled—I was concerned that the committee was not given full information about some of the intentions of the Department of Defence in relation to some of the properties we visited.I am not suggesting that we were told lies, but I do suspect we were not being told the full truth. Because of that, in my own time, whilst I was in Sydney with my family over the Christmas holidays, I revisited the Middle Head area of Sydney and took the opportunity to have a very close look at what was being proposed there. That further deepened my concerns about what was proposed and led me to the conclusions to which I have come in my dissenting report; in fact, I am convinced that any development on this site would result in a significant man-made blemish to the hoped for bushland appearance of the headlands and will be visible from the harbour.The committee was told quite clearly that that would not be the case. We did not have time, as it was a busy trip around the harbour, to stand on the areas which were to be developed. When I was enabled to do that by people who I assume knew what they were talking about, you had very clear views of the harbour from the parade ground, for example, at Georges Heights. If you could see the harbour from the parade ground which is to be sold off to private development, surely the people who build homes on what was now the parade ground would be able to see the harbour.I do not put in this dissenting report lightly; I do so because I think this does not all add up. Despite what the member for Fowler (Mr Ted Grace) said—I listened to his speech in my office before I came into the chamber—it is not about protecting privileged harbour site residences. The issue is far from that. The issue is about preserving Sydney Harbour for the people of Australia and the people of Sydney. Somehow in all the talk that is going on between the state government of New South Wales and the federal government we are missing the real point.I heard the member for Fowler allude to the time when Sydney Harbour was discovered. Later on Captain Arthur Phillip in reporting said these words:Here all regret from former disappointments was at once obliterated, and Governor Phillip had the satisfaction to find one of the finest harbours in the world in which a thousand sail on the line might ride in perfect security.Defence does not need the properties it owns on Sydney Harbour any more. That has been established. The question is what should happen to them. What I think the Prime Minister is saying but the message is not getting through is the following, and I quote his remarks on the John Laws program:The foreshores are one of Sydney's prized assets indeed one of the nation's prized assets. We are obviously looking at a number of proposals in that area because it would be a great gift to the people of Sydney and to the people of Australia.That can happen. The Federation Fund is the way that those resources can be provided. I want to take the opportunity in the few brief moments I have to refer to my dissenting report and indicate very clearly to the parliament and to the people of Australia that things are not happening there as they ought to. I know that the member for Warringah (Mr Abbott) is aware of the concerns about what is going on at Middle Head. It is not only Middle Head but also other areas. The concerns I am expressing in my dissenting report are specifically related to Middle Head and Georges Heights. (Time expired)13:11:001264McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I am glad to hear that the member for McPherson (Mr Bradford) has moved away from the pro-development views that he had when he was a councillor on Manly municipal council. The point he makes here today is right: this issue should not be left in the hands of the defence minister; it should be dealt with at heads of government level. That is why the Premier of New South Wales in his letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) late last year said:It is my strong belief that due to the national and international significance of Sydney Harbour determinations regarding the future of our defence land around the foreshore should be made between ourselves at a head of government level.I believe that the disposal of land around Sydney Harbour is too significant an issue for the people of Sydney, New South Wales and Australia to be left in the hands of a bunch of minor bureaucrats in the defence department who, unfortunately, are willing to bend the truth a little bit, as the member for McPherson pointed out with the North Head site.I was on that inspection with him and we were led to believe that you would not see any of this from the harbour. The truth is, as the member for McPherson said, they were very keen to keep us away from the parade ground. When you stood on the parade ground, if you could see the harbour they were going to see the buildings that were built there from the harbour. This land was initially owned by the New South Wales people. It was taken over by the Commonwealth via sections 69 and 85 of the constitution in 1901, and it is land that the people of New South Wales should have returned to them if the Commonwealth finds that the land is surplus. It was taken under the constitution; it should be given back as a gift.We should not be using the Federation Fund to purchase land that the Commonwealth already owns to give back to the people of New South Wales. That is a ridiculous use of that fund. As members of the National Party have complained both in this parliament and in the New South Wales parliament, there will be no money for the bush. The only person who has not complained about this is the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin) because he is not the least bit interested in any of the things that might affect the bush. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I know that you are probably very concerned about this, as are your National Party colleagues in New South Wales. The federal government should not be using the Natural Heritage Trust Fund to buy land that they already own so that they can hand it back.I believe the New South Wales government have taken the right approach when the Premier said to the Prime Minister that a lot of this land being handed back is surplus to the Commonwealth's use. We should attempt to re-establish the Neilson concept of a green belt around the Sydney Harbour. That is what we should be doing in the most pre-eminent harbour in this country. The New South Wales government have tried to do some things in the past, as did the Commonwealth government in the Fraser years to help re-establish that concept. The New South Wales government bought Neilson Park, Chowder Bay and Langs Point in 1978-79, and the Gap Bluff in 1982. They kept the remaining parts of Kelly's Bush in private ownership in 1983. The hermitage foreshore and quarantine station was acquired in 1984, and major acquisitions in Leichhardt including Black water Bay, Mort Bay and Peacock Point were achieved.What we should be doing is adopting the New South Wales government's guiding principles to development around the harbour. Those principles provide for maximum public use of and access to land on the foreshore; that land should be made available for public space and should be retained or placed in public ownership; public access links between existing foreshore open space should be retained and enhanced; significant bushland and other natural features along the foreshore should be conserved; any change in foreshore land use should protect and enhance the visual qualities of the harbour which my friend the member for McPherson has mentioned; and all items of heritage significance should be conserved and enhanced.These things are not happening under the Commonwealth government's attempts to transfer this land from the Commonwealth to the states. The Commonwealth government should pick up the comments made by the New South Wales Premier and deal with this at a heads-of-government level. Disbursement of this land should be taken out of the hands of the defence department and dealt with at that level. The people of Sydney should have returned to them—not at a cost to the Commonwealth or anyone else—land that they ceded in 1901.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 1.15 p.m., in accordance with standing order 102C the time for consideration of committee and delegation reports has concluded. Does the member for Fowler wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?1265Grace, Ted, MPMr TED GRACEZG4FowlerALP00—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills1265r4591265Bill presented by Mrs Crosio.13:16:001265Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I present the Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1998 . I first spoke on the need for legislation to protect workers' entitlements during a private members' debate in this chamber almost two years ago. I did so after Exicom, a telecommunications company located in my electorate, had collapsed into insolvency, owing $17 million to its 680 employees. Many of the people affected by Exicom's demise lived in my community. In an area where unemployment runs at almost double the national average, to have such a large number of people added to the job queue was one thing; to have them robbed of the money which they were legally owed was a social disaster. I know many members in this House have similar stories to tell.Today as I introduce the Employee Protection (Wage Guarantee) Bill 1998 —a bill which once passed would stop such a fate as befell Exicom's workers from ever occurring again—we have the misfortune of witnessing the same sorry story repeating itself. It is a moment of sad coincidence.As I introduce this bill, 160 workers from the insolvent Woodlawn zinc and copper mine in Goulburn are owed roughly $6 million in entitlements—many of them are here in the capital today; 270 miners from the failed CSA mine in Cobar are also owed $6 million in entitlements; 250 meatworkers in Grafton are owed more than $3 million; 157 nurses in Rockhampton and Yeppoon are owed $1.4 million; 2,000 workers formerly employed by the Sizzler chain of restaurants across Australia are owed $2 million. As a consequence of these dire circumstances, regional centres and towns are having their hearts and souls ripped out. As a consequence, mortgage repayments cannot be met and bills cannot be paid.Unfortunately, the bill before the House today will not help these people. It does not offer them retrospective relief. Their plight is an issue that the government must address separately and soon. What this bill does is fill a gaping hole in the nation's welfare safety net. It requires employers to insure their work forces under a wage protection insurance scheme and therefore guarantees the money they legally owe.Australia is the only country in the developed world without—at least in some parts of its borders—a system that either guarantees workers' entitlements against an employer's insolvency or provides them with the utmost priority against all other creditors. Australia has prided itself on its forward-thinking social reforms since Federation, yet we trail the developed world in a matter as significant and as important as protecting workers' entitlements.Under this bill, in the case of an employer's insolvency, workers will be insured for unpaid wages, annual leave or long service leave, liabilities resulting from the termination of employment without notice or with insufficient notice, and liabilities for repayment of any amounts paid by the employee to the employer for training in a particular trade or profession. Unless exempt under the legislation, all employers must take out and maintain a policy of wage protection insurance with an approved insurer for their work force. The Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner will administer the scheme.It is estimated that the money required from employers, not only to insure their workers but also to cover the scheme's administrative costs, would be an extra 0.1 per cent of their total wages bill—a marginal price to pay for such a major social reform.When I first discussed this issue in this House almost two years ago, I remember quite clearly a member on the government benches saying that I was not the first person on the planet to raise the issue. I do not claim to be. This is an issue that has raised its head a number of times in Australia. It is an issue that should have been addressed long ago. It is an issue to which the major parties should have paid more attention.I am proud to say that the opposition has committed itself to making the protection of workers' entitlements part of its industrial relations policy at the next election. The onus is now on the government to respond in kind. I am quite prepared for the government to amend my bill as long as its amendments bring about the same result. If it would like to suggest alternative ways of protecting workers' entitlements to those that are in my bill, perhaps I can assist by making a few extra of my own.One suggestion it may like to consider is making lending institutions pay for the privilege of retaining their position of priority over other creditors, including workers, in the event of company insolvency. Contributions to a wage guarantee fund by the banks would make up a large share of the money needed for a scheme like this to operate.If the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) is averse to making all members of the corporate community participate in a scheme such as mine, perhaps he could allow exemptions to the vast majority if they were to enter formal arrangements to place money covering their employees' entitlements in trust. Whatever he chooses to do, I urge the Prime Minister to pay serious consideration to the bill I am introducing into the House today. The Prime Minister may support it in full or use it as a foundation for his own legislation, but he must do something and he must do it now. He must put forward a proposal that will offer security and wage protection to Australian workers now and in the future.The opposition is ready and willing to offer its full support if he does so. There can be no more procrastination. The security of Australia's workers must be guaranteed. Their legal entitlements are theirs and theirs only. As legislators, we must guarantee that that commitment is kept. Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask leave of the House to present the explanatory memorandum to this bill.Leave granted.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO—I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Bill read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business1267126713:21:001267Smith, Tony, MPMr TONY SMITHSK6DicksonLP10—I move:That the House:(1) condemns the practice of child labour and calls on governments around the world to do all in their power to outlaw this evil practice; and(2) calls on governments and the private sector to boycott products from countries that use children in this shameful way.Yesterday in my electorate I attended the Arana Hills Little Athletics Trophy Day, where there were presentations for children aged between six and 15. I saw the joy and the happiness on the faces of those children. It is a happiness that only a child knows, when there is innocence and security of family and loved ones, free education, sport, plenty to eat, clean water and a doctor. It is a time for just having fun. Contrast this with the fact that an estimated 250 million children around the world work in hazardous and exploitative conditions and 12 million children under the age of five die each year, mainly from preventable disease and malnutrition. This indicates that something has to be done in a total sense to ameliorate the sufferings of children.On the Indian subcontinent alone it is estimated that 45 million children are caught up in this iniquitous cycle. But statistics alone do not tell the real story. Mubina is a bonded labourer in the infamous beedi tobacco factory near Madras. Her parents were very poor and her father was suffering from TB. They borrowed $47 from the local money lender and pledged five-year-old Mubina to work for him in the beedi unit. Two years on she still is doing this work. For 12 hours a day from 6 a.m. she sits cross-legged on the floor closing beedi ends. She has a quota of 3,000 a day. She has never been to school—not that she has a choice—because now the responsibility of keeping the family alive has fallen on her little shoulders.Seven-year-old Easwari worked a 12-hour day in a firecracker factory filling tubes with sulphur, aluminium dust and coal. After working there two years she was severely injured in an explosion caused by a child cutting gunpowder fuses. Her sister was killed in the accident. She is seriously disfigured in her arms, hands and body. In Salem in Tamil Nadu there are 100,000 child labourers. Some estimates suggest as many as 400,000. Figures are difficult to come by, of course.Slavery on the subcontinent dates back at least 1,500 years but in the area of child labour some appalling things have been happening. Children were frequently beaten with iron rods and wounded with scissors if they were slow in work or if they asked for adequate food, or if they so much as went to the toilet without the owner's permission. The Times of India reported on 14 August 1995 of a woman's attempt to rescue her youngest son after his brother died on the job in a carpet weaving factory. The employer of her son threatened to kill the boy if she attempted to meet him.In the silver industry in Salem, boys and girls enter the industry in equal numbers, usually aged between six and eight, sometimes as young as five. Most remain bonded to the industry throughout childhood and adolescence. Bondage has the effect that, when the children move from employer to employer, they might receive a bigger advance from their new employer so that they might pay both off—that is, their previous employer—and enjoy a small and temporary boost in cash flow.The average advance for six-year-olds is 5,000 rupees, about $160. One rupee equals about one farthing or half a cent. Although interest is not added to the principal amount owed, the disparity between the extremely low rate of wages paid and the minimum wage is equivalent to an effective annual interest rate in the region of 300 per cent. Beginning children earn one to five rupees a day; an accomplished child 10 rupees a day; bonded workers and older can make as much as 20 to 25 rupees a day, which reflects 10 years or more experience.A Human Rights Watch interview of children found injuries such as burns on fingers, arms, legs and feet. Scars were demonstrated, caused by work tools, blowtorches and acid mixers. Eyestrain and headache were com mon. No protective masks or goggles were supplied and torches were primitive. Children obviously had to keep their eyes near the point of the welding, and burns were routine. Clinical burns on the bodies of children, sparks in the eyes from welding, having to mix acid without protective gear—the list goes on.Mylappa is an eight-year-old boy who had been working in silk twisting for three years when he was interviewed by Human Rights Watch. His mother took an advance of money after the father died and now the family is working to pay off the loan. He earns one rupee an hour and works 12 hours a day. During power shutdowns he does not receive wages but must stay in the factory and help the employer out as ordered. He is chastised if he arrives late to work, he is beaten and so forth.It is a similar situation with girls as well. In fact, it even gets worse, because girl factory workers suffer from sexual abuse, frequently targeted by the owners of the factory. Because of the high rate of abuse, almost everyone assumes factory girls have been `touched', that is, molested or raped by the employers, and as a consequence they are shunned as potential brides. The working conditions are horrendous in these factories. There is no first aid and they are cramped in dark, damp and poorly ventilated conditions. One story emerged of a child being beaten up and placed in iron fetters.We must remember that the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the subcontinent is a party and most states are parties, specifies under article 28 that states parties must promote and encourage international cooperation in support of developing countries' efforts to ensure access to education for children. Article 32 enjoins states parties to protect children from performing work that is likely to be hazardous or harmful to the child's health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development. The convention attached international responsibility to states parties—that includes Australia—to prevent this occurring.One hundred million children between the ages of six and 11 have never attended school. At the World Conference on Education for All in 1990, governments promised to increase resources available to education. However, at the present time, the share of the developing world's gross national product devoted to education averages four per cent, the same as 1990. In some places it has declined. Education is a sound investment. The World Bank says that primary education is the largest single contributor to economic growth rates in Asian countries. Note that the Republic of Korea spends $130 per person per year; India $9; Pakistan $3; Bangladesh $2. It would cost an estimated $6 billion a year to put every child in school by the year 2000. If you think that is a lot, it is less than one per cent of what the world spends every year on weapons.Poor families are in urgent need and ought not to have to use their children to obtain these temporary reprieves. We need to give credit to poor families. The Grameen Bank in Bangladesh has achieved widespread international recognition by providing credit to the poorest members of society. The Grameen Bank has to be supported in its particular projects.As we have seen by recent news reports on the export of child labour products, major problems have arisen in relation to identifying sources. The identification that products have been produced by child labour is a continuing challenge to all governments. In the United States, the US government will establish a system to identify products produced by forced or indentured child labour so as to ban their entry into the United States. In the international arena, the ILO's Program on the Elimination of Child Labour, IPEC, is one that demands support. At the present time a new ILO Convention on Child Labour is to be considered by the ILO conference in June 1998.I think Australia needs to do much more in terms of identifying goods produced by forced or indentured child labour. The United States made an amendment to its Trade Act to prevent the importation of goods where articles or merchandise are mined, produced or manufactured by such labour. The law gives wide powers to Customs to intercept imports and carry out investigations to determine sources of products where child labour is involved. We know that this has happened in the past, particularly in relation to rugs and carpets.The Rugmark Foundation has demonstrated that elimination of this practice can be achieved. Rugmark is a non-profit corporation made up of representatives from human rights groups, UNICEF and members of the carpet industry. It relies on inspectors employed by the foundation who conduct random surprise inspections of looms that are pre-registered with the foundation.The practice of child labour is a blot on society and a shame to the whole world. But it is more than just child labour; it is raising the status of the child by education and by providing opportunities through the mechanisms of such great organisations as the Grameen Bank. I commend this report, The state of the world's children, a 1997 UNICEF publication, to the House. Some of the pictures in this particular publication are ample evidence, in my view, of the terrible practice of child labour. We need to do more. I urge this House to give support to this motion.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?13:31:001269Willis, Ralph, MPMr WILLISZJ4GellibrandALP00—I second the motion. This matter which has been brought before the House is indeed a most appropriate one in the sense that it addresses an issue which should be of great concern to not only this parliament but also every parliament around the world. There is no more disgraceful activity on the face of the planet at the moment than the exploitation of so many millions of children through child labour. We are talking about 250 million children, as the member for Dickson (Mr Tony Smith) mentioned.That 250 million represents one quarter of all of the children in developing countries aged between five and 14. So in that age group one quarter of all of the children are working. Of that number, about 120 million are working full time—that is, they are not at school but working full time in the appalling conditions to which the member for Dickson has referred. This is a tremendous disgrace. It means 12 per cent of those children have no opportunity for school and are working in appalling conditions—often conditions almost beyond our imagination. What we need to do is to consider what we as a parliament can recommend as action to be taken against such measures.There is a gathering of world momentum towards taking some action. I am very pleased to see that there is such a momentum. That momentum has come through the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the United Nations adopted in 1990 and which virtually all countries, with some exceptions, including the USA, have ratified. That convention is certainly an important protection for children. But the reality is that many of the countries that have ratified it do not adhere to its conditions and are not going to for a long time.We also have the ILO conventions. The ILO conventions addressing this issue have been in place since 1919—at least one convention has—and there have been a number since in relation to forced labour and minimum ages. But those conventions are increasingly recognised as being inadequate to address the problem, and there is a need for a more specific convention which addresses this problem directly.The ILO has been moving towards the adoption of such a convention. This year there will in fact be the first round of discussion on a convention which outlaws exploitative labour. Exploitative labour is the more horrendous part of child labour—that which relates to full-time work at too early an age; work that exerts undue physical, social or psychological stress; work and life on the streets; work that hampers access to education; work that undermines children's dignity and self-esteem, such as slavery or bonded labour; and sexual exploitation. Such a convention would certainly help by focusing directly on the major aspects of the problem and it would help to address a deficiency in the labour conventions at the present time.There has also been gathering momentum in the sense of international conferences on this issue. In Sweden in 1996 there was a convention on the commercial sexual exploit ation of children. Last year in Amsterdam and Oslo there were conventions on the problem of exploitative labour. This year, of course, we have the forthcoming discussion at the ILO. So there is quite a roll on to get some kind of activity going.But the ILO has not just been looking at the matter of the convention. It has also had in place a program, to which the member for Dickson referred, and that is IPEC, the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labour, which started in 1992 with funding by the German government, which continues to fund it along with some other developed countries, which included Australia. But my understanding is that Australia has ceased funding to that program. If so, that is an extraordinarily disgraceful development.What IPEC does is to enable the ILO to provide support to countries, to appraise the nature and extent of child labour, to identify priority groups and to develop and implement policies and programs which aim at the elimination of child labour. Nineteen countries are currently involved; 10 are in the process of being brought into it. This has proved to be an effective approach but the funds applied against the scale of the problem are totally inadequate. There are also UNICEF projects directed at this issue as well as many non-government organisations working in the area.What else could be done? This motion refers to boycotts by government and by the private sector. I am not quite sure what the member means by that, but I hope he does not mean trade sanctions. This issue is a very controversial one. Trade sanctions have been looked at by a body which the Keating Labor government commissioned in 1995, and it reported in February 1996. It basically recommended against having trade boycotts because, it said, they would not be effective. It said that they would be deficient because they would impact only on child labour employed in the traded goods sector, which only covers about five per cent of child labour according to the 1997 UNICEF report The state of the world's children. So that means 95 per cent of child exploitative labour would be unaffected by trade sanctions. Also, the effect would likely be to shift child labour from the traded goods sector to domestic industries, thus still leaving them in exploitative labour. In other words, it would be ineffective in that sense.They also said that a ban on importing products of child labour would need to distinguish between exploitative child labour and other labour and this relies on judgments that would be difficult in many cases; that there would also be problems in identifying products of exploitative child labour to a level that withstood legal challenge; and that the enforcement effects would be extremely resource intensive and easily circumvented. For those reasons, the ban was likely to be ineffective. They therefore concluded that the problem of child labour is multifaceted. It is better to apply funds to addressing the problem directly, as is done with the IPEC program, rather than through trade boycotts, which have a superficial appeal but clearly are not likely to be tremendously effective.UNICEF and the ILO are both mightily motivated by this issue. UNICEF devoted its 50th annual report to this issue, therefore indicating the great importance they give it. The ILO was clearly highly motivated to address it. Neither of them are arguing for trade boycotts. They are arguing to directly attack the problem by setting in place the legal frameworks which give proper protection and also the social structure which will enable these issues to be more appropriately addressed. That usually comes down to funds.In particular, those organisations point to the need for the provision of free basic education. The children involved are not getting any education. It is unbelievable that at least 12 per cent but up to 25 per cent of the developing world's children between five and 14 get little or no education. That is extraordinary. It locks those people permanently into unskilled work or no work at all for the rest of their lives because they do not have an education, a background, which will give them the skills to be employed in the future. It is therefore a cycle of poverty.To overcome that, UNICEF and the ILO recommend strongly that we focus on education. That requires funds. It requires funds for schools to be developed. The Harkin bill, a trade boycott bill which was introduced in the United States, scared the Bangladesh garment industry into sacking 50,000 young people. A follow-up study found that a lot of those people did not go to school; instead they got jobs in terrible areas like prostitution, street hawking and the like. So there was little in the way of gain. The ILO, UNICEF and others then introduced another program to try to provide education facilities, to provide a stipend to those children so they had an income. This is a costly program.The bottom line of this is that, if the Western world is really concerned about child labour, it is not a matter of it just passing trade boycotts so we can all feel good; the West should be not only encouraging the countries concerned to devote a suitable proportion of their resources to providing such basic things as good labour inspection services to ensure their laws are policed and good education facilities but also providing appropriate aid. The West is continually reducing its aid. We are down to 0.28 per cent of GDP. Developed countries generally are down to 0.25 per cent, against a target of 0.7 per cent. The percentage is declining all the time. It is no good standing up here and talking about the need to do things when we are not addressing the issue appropriately. (Time expired)13:41:001271Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—If you cannot do much about Australia's commitment to foreign aid when you are the Treasurer of the country, as the member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) was in the previous government, what hope is there for the rest of us? I quote:The day will come when the progress of nations will be judged not by their military or economic strength, nor by the splendour of their capital cities and public buildings, but by the wellbeing of their peoples; by their levels of health, nutrition and education; by their opportunities to earn a fair reward for their labours; by their ability to participate in the decisions that affect their lives; by the respect that is shown for their civil and political liberties; by the provision that is made for those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged; and by the protection that is afforded to the growing minds and bodies of their children.This was the definition of `the progress of nations' as enunciated by the United Nations Children's Fund in 1993. If this is how world progress is to be measured, we have a considerable distance to go. The health and wellbeing of children, the extent to which we nurture their idealism and protect their vulnerable transition to adulthood are critical measures of a caring society. What kind of world do we as people who live in an affluent country want to live in? What are we as parliamentarians prepared to do to make it happen, to overcome the injustice and the inhumanity of child labour?Opinion pollsters that service both major political parties in this parliament seldom take their clipboards to the shacks, the slums and the shanty towns of the developing world but, if they did, they would find there that the aspirations of parents for their children are little different from those of the people whom we are privileged to represent in this parliament.Australians have joined the rest of the world in being far more preoccupied with the soap opera antics of the royal family and the alleged sexual indiscretions of a US President than the injustice of children who are underfed, slavishly overworked, subjected to harmful physical and work practices and denied any form of social and legal status. We are at risk of becoming a people who no longer care about the rest of the world. In that regard, I concur entirely with the comments of the member for Gellibrand, because I believe that the strength of individuals and of nations can be measured in terms of the care, concern and compassion that are shown to those who are most vulnerable and who are most in need.The comments of the member for Oxley (Ms Hanson) when she first spoke in this place—that we should withdraw from the United Nations, for example; and that we should not send foreign aid to the rest of the world—reflect an inattention that is in all of us, a dark side of human nature that says, `I should care only for myself and the things that are immediately around me.' I believe that the Australian government I am privileged to currently be a member of and all Australian governments need to seriously reconsider not only the way in which we spend our foreign aid money but also the quantum of wealth that we are prepared to contribute to those who are in need. The ultimate price of progress in many countries is being paid by children—so well enunciated by my colleagues who have spoken to this motion.How we choose to live affects the world. Let us choose to live to change the world. And let us not ever succumb to the warning given by Robert Kennedy in June 1966 in Cape Town when he warned of the danger of futility—the belief that there is nothing one man or woman can do against the vast array of the world's misery and ills. We can do something about it, and I believe that, if there is a political will and it exists strongly in this parliament, change will be effected.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Bradfield will have leave to continue his remarks.Miscellaneous127212721272Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—On Saturday I had the honour to be one of four judges of the Region 4 Final of the Lions Youth of the Year Quest. The quest is designed to encourage student interest in leadership and recognise the qualities required to take on active and constructive roles in the community. It attracts over 3,000 contestants nationally and was first held back in 1964. As well as participating in interview and question sessions, these young people also gave speeches on a wide range of topics: heroin addiction, political correctness, dieting and body image, multiculturalism, and the Gulf War.My congratulations and good wishes for the future go to Heidi Yates of Daramalan College, Campbell McArthur of St Edmund's College, Emma Moon of Queanbeyan High School, Martina Mende of Radford College and the Region 4 winner, Penny Cashman of Daramalan College. I congratulate President Ken McLeish, Secretary Chris Rogerson, Trevor Fowler and members of the Lions Club of Canberra—Lake Tuggeranong for the wonderful job they did in hosting and organising this Region 4 Final.Lions Australia, this is a great project and my optimism for our future is strengthened by this experience. I note and look forward to the national finals, which will be held in Canberra in conjunction with the Lions Australia National Convention in May this year.12721272Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—I would like to strongly condemn the premiers and chief ministers of Australia for their cunning stunt last Friday in walking out of a Premiers Conference and therefore letting down the people that they are seeking to represent. Whether you are representing the states or whether you are representing the Commonwealth, you have an obligation to act in the best interests of the people that you are seeking to represent. The premiers, by picking up their bat and ball and walking away from the debate, have let down the people that they seek to represent and they have not only tried to cost shift responsibility for health care in Australia from the states to the Commonwealth, but they have also tried to shift responsibility for the parlous state of Australian hospitals from the states to the Commonwealth. I am not going to let them get away with it.The way the Royal North Shore Hospital in my electorate has been treated by Premier Carr, after he made outrageous promises on hospital waiting lists before the last state election, has resulted in a significant let down in the treatment of patients at the Royal North Shore Hospital. The Carr government are not going to get away it. They are making promises that they cannot deliver. Their egos are writing cheques that their bodies cannot cash and, at the end of the day, the premiers have to face the electors that they have sought to represent; they have to go back to the people and they have to explain just why they walked out of the conference, why they are not going to negotiate with the Australian people and why they are not going to debate the issues that really matter—(Time expired)12731273Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I would like to congratulate the Western Sydney Alliance of Councils, which are here in Canberra expressing their concern over the failed EIS on Badgerys Creek. Those councils and their mayors—from Blacktown, Blue Mountains, Baulkham Hills, Campbelltown, Camden, Fairfield, Holroyd, Penrith, Parramatta and Wollondilly councils—have specifically stated in their press conference today that the EIS has failed to comply with the government's own guidelines. The EIS on Badgerys Creek has grossly underestimated the number of schools affected. The EIS has failed to meet the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Aircraft Noise.The EIS has used inferior air pollution testing and misrepresents noise impacts. There is no cost benefit analysis and it contains major inadequacies in assessing hazards and risks. It fails on several counts to meet international standards and continually relies on inadequate data, secondary and out of date research, failed meteorology and, at times, lacks scientific credibility. I congratulate the mayors and the councils for coming forward to Canberra to put their feelings forward.Mr Speaker, as you will see in the submissions they have launched here today in Canberra, they have put a lot of time and effort into showing this government the mistake it has made in pursuing Badgerys Creek. It is not too late to rectify it before that first sod is turned. You must, as a government, allow greater study into the environmental impact statement. More particularly, more time must be allocated to the councils representing 1.6 million in population, so they can get on with the job and show this government how inadequate its plans for Badgerys Creek really are. (Time expired)12731273Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENTMT4McMillanLP10—Mr Speaker, let me congratulate you on your elevation to your position; it is the first time I have spoken under your guidance. I am here in praise of the Premier of Victoria, Mr Jeffrey Kennett, on his opening of the Bonlac Foods milk processing plant at Darnum. I am here to say that more than 1,800 guests, including more than 1,200 Bonlac dairy farmer suppliers, attended the opening ceremony. Other guests included people from Japan, Brazil, China, the Philippines and Singapore. The Darnum Park construction cost $150 million. It is the single biggest greenfield investment ever in the history of the Australian dairy industry. It gives a substantial boost to milk powder production.The plant is capable of producing some 60,000 tonnes of milk powder per annum and will add substantially to Bonlac Food's export performance, which last year was worth around half a billion dollars. The investment at Darnum Park is a tangible expression of our determination to achieve sustainable competitiveness in a global dairy market, led out of Gippsland in Victoria—particularly my seat of McMillan. This factory is world leading edge environmental practice, which is instantly recognised by current and prospective customers from around the world. Darnum Park was awarded the 1997 Environment Protection Authority Clean Production Award. So, all praise to the Premier of Victoria.12731273Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—As the representative of an electorate with over 150 different multicultural groups, I was pleased to be in attendance at a multicultural function in my electorate of Greenway organised by the Girl Guides Association of New South Wales. I see our mixed cultural backgrounds as one of Australia's greatest strengths and, at the same time, presenting possibly one of our greatest challenges. It is important that young people from all cultural backgrounds learn to mix and socialise with each other at an early age, so I was pleased that the Girl Guides Association had organised a special function to reach out to young ladies from non-English speaking backgrounds. I was pleased to welcome to my electorate Sue Maple-Brown, the chairperson of the guides multicultural committee; Mrs Robin Hill, the deputy state commissioner; and the guest speaker, Lady Carrick OA, the Vice President of the Girl Guides Association of New South Wales.The meeting was also addressed by two people from non-English speaking backgrounds: Wajial Ahmen from Pakistan and Samantha Bartholomeusz from Sri Lanka. Wajial and Samantha spoke on their guides experience. Based on their contribution, I am sure that many more young ladies from our diverse cultural backgrounds will enjoy being part of the guides movement in New South Wales.12741274Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—Today I wish to bring to the House's attention an issue that is causing major outrage in the Redcliffe peninsula community. The Labor state opposition leader, Mr Peter Beattie, has recently made comments to the effect that if Labor was to win at the next state election then a Labor government would not renew licences for whale watching in Moreton Bay. The Redcliffe community is a city with much potential, but this announcement goes against the very hard-working people of that city. The Redcliffe City Council and I work tirelessly to encourage business investment and growth in the local area. Whale watching brings to the area jobs, economic stability, development and growth, as well as those wonderful flow-on effects to restaurants, accommodation and local small businesses as a whole.This announcement by the ALP would reverse much of the great work that is done by people like Captain Kerry McTaggart, who employs 15 people in her whale watching operation in Redcliffe. Captain McTaggart has said that Akarma Water Cruises has a $2.5 million investment in tourism. Does the ALP want to put all this at risk? Is the ALP against encouraging women to make the most of their opportunities in business—just as they are against women being preselected in the seat of Oxley? If Labor had its way, it would be sending women back to the kitchen instead of providing women with a real choice—to work at a career or to be at home with their children. (Time expired)12741274Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—I want to join with the member for North Sydney (Mr Hockey) in his condemnation of the federal Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) in the way he has handled the Medicare agreement. It is obvious, since his answer to a question on 10 March from the member for Paterson (Mr Bob Baldwin)—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Hunter got it totally incorrect. I criticised the premiers—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is the point of order?DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—And the Labor premier of New South Wales in particular.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order, I regret to advise you.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON—It hurts, Mr Speaker. It is obvious, since his answer to the member for Paterson on 10 March, that the Minister for Health and Family Services is now challenging the member for Goldstein (Dr Kemp) for the title of `minister for porkies'. He told the House on that occasion that, of the 680 GPs in the Hunter Region, there are only 12 that do not bulk-bill. Let me assure you that in my electorate of Hunter alone there are at least 12 GPs that do not bulk-bill. I can assure you there are at least 12 to 20 more in the electorate of the member for Paterson who do not bulk-bill.The simple fact is that this government is stabbing Medicare through the back door; it is squeezing GP rebates to the point where GPs are exiting the system at a rate of knots. If the member for Paterson or the Minister for Health and Family Services want to challenge me on this issue, they should explain why it is that on 11 March my office in Hunter was inundated with telephone calls from people, both in Paterson and in Hunter, explaining that in recent months their GP has deserted bulk-billing. (Time expired)12741274Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—I would like to welcome to the House today the 10 mayors of the councils in Western Sydney who form the Western Sydney Alliance: Councillor Allan Ezzy, the Chairman of the Alliance and the Mayor of Holroyd; Councillor Kevin Dwyer, the Mayor of Penrith, in my own electorate; Councillor Geoff Brooke- Cowden, Mayor of Baulkham Hills; Councillor Charlie Lowles, Mayor of Blacktown; Councillor Michael Neall, Mayor of the Blue Mountains; Councillor Geoff Corrigan, Mayor of Camden; Councillor Meg Oates, Mayor of Campbelltown; Councillor Anwar Khoshaba, Mayor of Fairfield; Councillor John Haines, Lord Mayor of Parramatta; and Councillor Marina Voncina, Mayor of Wollondilly.They are all here today to present their submission on the EIS, which I have here with me today. It deals with a number of issues and flaws present in the draft EIS. The people in my electorate have until the 30th of this month to put in their submissions on this draft before a final submission is made for cabinet consideration. I urge everyone to put their submissions in. I commend the Western Sydney Alliance's submission to the House. All of the concerns will be taken into account when the final EIS is prepared. I think it is most important that this final EIS is a conclusive document, scientifically backed, including the MAC study and various other studies that need to be taken into account—as set out in the auditor's report—and that we have a final, conclusive document which shows that Badgerys Creek should be kicked into touch as an option for an airport. (Time expired)12751275Dargavel, Steven, MPMr DARGAVELKP6FraserALP00—Before being elected to this parliament, it was my privilege to represent the maintenance workers at Woodlawn mine, operated by the company Denehurst. The workers at Woodlawn knew some time ago that the mine would close. Indeed, when we entered into negotiations with Denehurst management, the principal issue was redundancy payments. The workers at the mine ratcheted down their pay claims in order to reach a satisfactory accommodation in relation to redundancy. The company was supposed to set aside moneys for those workers' redundancies. However, it obviously has not. The company has closed, leaving my former members without those redundancy payments. These are people living in regional Australia; people without money which is owed to them. These company directors and the financiers who stand behind them, the secured creditors who wish to take these workers' money, should be condemned by this parliament.The workers forwent their wage claims; they were loyal to this company for many years. This company has not repaid that loyalty in any way, shape or form. Here we see the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) in the chamber; we have not yet seen from him one suggestion to support the workers at Woodlawn mines. He is preoccupied with attacking the workers of this country. He has not yet discussed with the Woodlawn miners what their concerns are or what his government's plans are to redress the absolutely outrageous attacks on them. (Time expired)12751275Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—Mr Speaker, my congratulations to you as well on your elevation to the chair as Speaker. I would like to inform members of the House of the loss of a young Australian who was part of a UN team in Guatemala and was killed last week in a helicopter smash—Lisa Malone, who came from Wodonga. It is a very sad loss. I would like to pay tribute to Lisa and extend sympathy to her parents and brothers and sister. Lisa was a young hero who gave her time for virtually no cost at all to many causes, including indigenous handicapped children and also street children in Adelaide. For the last little while she has been working with the United Nations in Guatemala and doing wonderful work in an education unit. I thought it would be appropriate, as Lisa's body arrived in Australia this morning, to pay tribute to her and to extend sympathy to her family.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A the time for members' statements has concluded.Ministerial Arrangements12751275Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) will be absent from question time this week. He will be attending meetings with the President of Korea and members of the Korean ministry in Seoul and calling on senior Japanese political leaders in Tokyo to promote Austral ian trade and broader commercial interests in Asia. The Minister for Trade and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) will act as Minister for Foreign Affairs during his absence.Questions Without Notice127610000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before I call on questions without notice, can I suggest to members from both sides of the House that both in the asking of questions and the giving of replies they do so through the chair rather than through interchange across the bar table.12761276Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you recall telling the parliament that Senator Parer had declared to you his direct personal shareholding in QCMM Group (ESP)? Did Senator Parer also tell you that through that company he also had a 730,000 share interest in Pan Australian Resources NL? Is the Prime Minister aware that Pan Australian Resources is involved in major gold, nickel, diamond, copper, cobalt, lead, zinc and silver exploration in Western Australia and Queensland? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that his minister for gold, nickel, diamonds, copper, cobalt, lead, zinc and silver has taken no decision that advantaged Pan Australian?1276Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am satisfied that the information that I gave to the House 10 days ago on this matter, which was based on advice I had received, is accurate. But, Mr Speaker, can I take the opportunity afforded by the question asked by the honourable member for Hotham that, in order to successfully pursue this matter, you have to demonstrate that there has been an actual conflict of interest and you have failed to do that.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Rubbish!ZD4Mr HOWARD—You can interject as much as you choose. Until you can demonstrate that Senator Parer has been involved in a conflict of interest, your attack is irrelevant and it is not one that is having any impression on the government.12761276Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Can the minister inform the House of the details of the government's offer to the states on funding for public hospitals? Will the patients in Australia, and particularly those in my electorate of Lilley, be affected by the states and territories behaviour at the Premiers Conference in Canberra last week?1276Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for her question. The offer that the government has put to the states is as follows: in the last five years we have spent $27.3 billion on Commonwealth-state health care agreements. The forward estimates show that that would rise over the next five years as a matter of course to $30.3 billion. There is a $3 billion increase built into the forward estimates already. Over and above that, the Commonwealth has put the following on the table: $1.5 billion in the base funding over the next five years; an extra $750 million for full cost purchasing of veterans in public hospitals: $500 million for initiatives in efficiency and effectiveness in hospitals, particularly in the area of information technology; and $120 million on waiting lists, to make a total offer over and above the forward estimates of $2.9 billion of new money. This is a 6.9 per cent real increase in the first year of funding, moving to a 15.4 per cent real increase over the five years of the agreements.The agreements also bring in a number of innovations. In terms of looking at growth in hospital funding, we have a fairly complicated indexation formula, but one that takes into account age, sex, population, the level of private health insurance and what is called utilisation drift. This is a big advantage on the 1993 agreement. If the level of private health insurance coverage drops, the Commonwealth will on a formula driven basis add $83 million a year to the health care agreements. The states will not need to claim the money. It will simply be there on the basis of a formula.Further, over and above everything we can possibly think of that might increase hospital utilisation, we have also added a one per cent drift factor which can be largely accounted for by new technology and inherent underlying demand. This one per cent drift is consistent with what has happened over the past decade. Unlike 1993, once the states sign up they can reasonably expect that all the contingencies will be accounted for. We are also offering them something that is not of financial benefit but very practical benefit in running their hospitals, and that is substantially greater flexibility. The system is silly at the moment because, if a state was to put in place a very comprehensive program say to stop older people breaking their hips, and in fact they were successful, they would be penalised at the moment because they would not be doing so many hip operations for broken neck of femur. Clearly, we want to prevent illness as much as treat illness.These agreements allow states to put in place measures that may shift treatment from in-hospital into the community and it puts in place arrangements that allow states to bring in prevention programs to try and stop doing the operations in the first place. Also we are bringing in a measure and share arrangement which would allow states to have a look at arrangements whereby the Commonwealth-state boundaries could be broken down. This will mean an end to cost shifting and give us a chance to work cooperatively for the first time ever.The states are asking for $1.1 billion over and above whatever the Commonwealth chooses to put on the table at any point in time. This means 300,000 additional operations per year and, quite frankly, there are not that many people around needing operations. All that would do is one of two things. The first is that it would create demand which is not there, which can certainly happen in health. The second thing it would do is allow the states to pull out their own funding for hospitals, which is what happened in 1993. Honourable members will be interested to know that after the 1993 health care agreement the Commonwealth has increased its funding nearly 20 per cent in real terms. The states reduced their funding in the first year by 12 per cent. For the benefit of honourable members, I table a graph with Commonwealth Grants Commission data showing health care funding at Commonwealth and state levels over the last five years.Finally, the honourable member asked whether people in her electorate will be affected. I would say to her that health funding is going up $3 billion anyway on the forward estimates, and we will stick by that forward estimate. But if states do want to access the extra $2.9 billion, if they want to access the flexibility or if they want to access the measure of share, then we expect them to sign an arrangement.12771277Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, did the minister for resources tell you that his $2 million holding in Queensland Coal Mine Management also involved a 100 per cent ownership in a subsidiary called Kiskin? Did he reveal that Kiskin, in turn, owns shares in Pan Australian Resources—some 3.7 million of them? I ask the Prime Minister again if he can assure the House that his minister for gold, nickel, diamonds, copper, cobalt, lead, zinc and silver has taken no decisions that advantage Pan Australian.1277Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As I indicated to the parliament, the existence of the company QCMM was referred to in the disclosure that was made to me, and I am satisfied, from the information that I have been given, that full disclosure has been made. I would also commend to those sitting opposite—and no doubt it will be available to you shortly—a detailed letter which Senator Parer has, I understand, tabled in the Senate this afternoon which fully canvasses the issues raised against him last week; for example, the claim made that in some way when he was in Japan he was advancing the interests of a coal mining company in which his family trust held shares. The reality, as disclosed by the record of conversation taken by an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade during that discussion, demonstrates no such thing.DT4CREANMr Crean—Table it!ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is being tabled in the Senate, and I am perfectly happy for the internal processes of the Australian Labor Party to supply a copy of it to you here. You will also find when you get hold of that information that there will be a minute from the relevant person from within Senator Parer's department attesting to the fact that at no stage was any decision taken by him that could represent a conflict of interest. You might also, on an examination of the Hansard record in the Senate, acknowledge the fact that your colleague Senator Ray has acknowledged that the opposition is not alleging that Senator Parer has been involved in any dishonesty, nor has he been involved in any conflict of interest.What is involved here is an attempt by the Labor Party to stoke the fans of envy politics. The Labor Party does not have any evidence of a conflict of interest, and I say to those who sit opposite: you demonstrate where Senator Parer has been involved in a conflict of interest, you demonstrate where Senator Parer has behaved dishonourably, you demonstrate where he has failed his ministerial duty, and then you will have an argument of substance. But I can assure those of you who sit opposite that the politics of envy do not wash with me, they do not wash with the government and they do not wash with the Australian public.12781278Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House what steps the government has taken to make Australia a more attractive place in which to invest and to do business? How has the government sought to enhance Australia's role as a regional financial centre?1278Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Wannon for his question, and I acknowledge the good work that he is doing on behalf of this parliament on the finance committee that he is involved in. I think most people in the House would know the steps that the government has taken to get the macro economy strengthened in Australia, the steps we have taken to reduce debt, and the steps we have taken to overcome the financial neglect of the Labor Party, to lock in low inflation and to get low interest rates. But it is also a very big part of this government's reform program to reform the regulation of the Australian financial sector.It has been our aim to make the Australian financial sector world class and state of the art in terms of regulation. We have done that by commissioning a financial report known as the Wallis inquiry and, in the course of the last week, I announced measures to speed up financial reform in Australia including the appointment of a chief executive officer to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, Mr Graeme Thompson, and a chairman, Dr Jeff Carmichael. I also announced the establishment of an Australian Securities and Investment Commission to look after consumer regulation as well as corporations regulation and to establish a payment system board in the Reserve Bank of Australia.The Credit Union Services Corporation described these appointments as showing a commitment to making APRA a first-class regulator. The Institute of Actuaries of Australia said that the government is serious about setting high standards of regulation in this country. I think this shows the absolute opportunity we have in this country—looking out and seeing the financial instability in the region—to make Australia a base for the financial services region here in Australia and to give Australians an opportunity to get involved in this very exciting industry.In addition to that, in the course of the week the government announced a comprehensive overhaul of Australia's corporate law to improve Australia as a base for doing business in the region. We have made it easier for small business to raise money through an offer information statement. We have clarified the duties of directors with a business judgment rule. We propose to introduce new takeover rules which will enhance a more competitive takeovers regime in this country and to adapt regulations to facilitate the introduction of electronic commerce. The ACCI said:The changes to fund raising, business judgment rules, takeovers, application of electronic commerce and other elements of the package will improve the competitiveness of Australian business, leading to greater investment and job creation.The National Executive Director of the Master Builders Association said:The changes would empower small and medium sized businesses to help drive the revitalisation of the Australian economy.These are major reforms. These are substantive reforms. These are the kinds of reforms that Australia needs to improve its business climate and to make Australia a base for the financial sector in this country. These are big parts of the government's economic reform program and, at the end of the day, they mean a better climate for business and more jobs for all Australians.12791279Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that a number of Pan Australian exploration leases are subject to native title claims? Given the interest of the minister for gold, nickel, diamonds, et cetera in Pan Australian Resources, together with the native title claim over his Lake Vermont coal deposit, why did the minister sit silent during the Senate debate as a number of his colleagues declared their potential conflict of interest through their mining shares?1279Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am not aware of—and nor could I be expected to be aware of—the sequence of events in relation to native title claims. The question of whether Senator Parer should have made some declaration in relation to the native title debate is a matter that Senator Parer and the Senate will address.DT4CREANMr Crean—Oh, yeah!ZD4Mr HOWARD—They will. Why do you say, `Oh, yeah'? Unlike in this place, you actually have a few numbers in the Senate. Senator Parer will be addressing that matter. Let us go back to what is involved here. Where is the conflict of interest?DT4CREANMr Crean—There's the conflict of interest!ZD4Mr HOWARD—Oh, there's the conflict of interest. Are you saying that Senator Parer set out to directly enrich himself by that behaviour? Are you? Are you suggesting that, are you? The fact of the matter is you have no evidence of a conflict of interest, you have—DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. You asked the Prime Minister to direct his comments through the chair, but am I entitled to answer the questions he is now posing to me?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, you are not. There is no point of order.DT4CREANMr Crean—Then I ask you to draw his attention to addressing the question correctly.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is directing his remarks through the chair.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Senator Parer has not been involved in any conflict of interest, and you have not provided any evidence to substantiate that because there is no evidence. You are flailing around with indirect linkages that do not involve any conflict of interest. The government and I stand by our support of Senator Parer.12791279Taylor, Bill, MPMr TAYLOROJ4GroomLP10—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Does the government intend to seek a mandate at the next federal election to enable Australians to further share in Telstra? What is the government's response to other approaches which have been taken previously on this issue?1279Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPFinance and Administration10—The honourable member for Groom and all honourable members would know that, prior to the last election, the government made it very clear to the Australian public that, if elected, we would seek legislation to enable the sale of one-third of Telstra. That legislation, of course, was forthcoming and a very successful public share offer occurred which allowed some 1.8 million Australians to take a share in one of Australia's greatest companies. That company is in one of the fastest growing sectors in the economy, the telecommunications area.The one-third sale of Telstra allowed Australian share ownership to soar to over 40 per cent of adult Australians. That indicates a clear desire for Australians to invest and to share in the nation's growth. Of course, Mr Speaker, Labor tried to stop that particular process. The Prime Minister and the government have now made it very clear that we will seek a mandate to extend that growth in share ownership for Australians taking an interest in one of the fastest growing sectors of the economy.The benefits are not necessarily restricted to those who have actually taken up the opportunity to invest. All Australians will benefit from what the government does with the proceeds of a further sale. It will allow this government to deliver a knockout blow on the high government debt that was a legacy of Labor. The record shows that in June of last year there was some $95 billion of general government debt. That has come down somewhat since the sale of one-third of Telstra. We have used the proceeds of that sale to significantly reduce government debt. A further sale could allow up to $40 billion to be taken off that debt that Labor left us. That, when it is combined with the budget surpluses which this government is moving towards, will allow us to eventually, by the year 2001, reduce the approximately $100 billion left to us by Labor down to about one-quarter of that. The actual timing of that is dependent very much, of course, on what the market will demonstrate as to when such a sale should occur if the legislation is forthcoming.I also want to make it abundantly clear to all members of the House that, despite what Labor has been seeking to do in recent times, under no circumstances is Telstra a public monopoly. Labor itself was the government some years ago that moved to introduce a competitive regime. That competitive regime will ensure that the benefits flow on to the people of Australia—to the users. Only last week there was an article—there were articles every second day but this one showed very clearly that Telstra was preparing itself for a battle on local calls. There is Optus, there is Vodafone and there are licences being given to everybody else. We welcome that competitive pressure because the benefits flow through to all consumers of telecommunications, particularly in relation to the telephone.Last week as I watched the Leader of the Opposition on television seeking to oppose what the government has announced it will seek by way of mandate at the next election it was clear to me that the body language said everything. The body language showed that the Leader of the Opposition had absolutely no stomach for the words that he was mouthing, so much so that what we saw happen was an unelected member in Cheryl Kernot being appointed as the spokesperson on the Telstra issue. Obviously the Leader of the Opposition wants to keep it as far away from himself and the official spokesman as is possible and he is seeking—Mr Beazley interjecting—HQ5Mr FAHEY—Well that was what was clearly given by way of demonstration by you last week. The embarrassment probably flows from what we heard from the CEO of Telstra in 1996. In 1996 when Mr Blount, the CEO of Telstra, was asked what the details were of the job description he was given he said, `Look, I wasn't given a brief but I was told that it was an agenda item depending upon how things progressed.' I am waiting for the day that the Leader of the Opposition tells this House that he was the one who gave that clear indication that privatisation of Telstra was on the Labor Party agenda. Mr Speaker, what we are about is fixing up the economy, fixing up the national accounts and using the proceeds of Telstra to overwhelmingly retire that $100 billion of debt, and that will give a benefit to all Australians year in and year out—indefinitely.12801280Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to Senator Parer's interest in QCMM Group (ESP) Pty Ltd, which he personally disclosed to you, and, through it, his interest in Pan Australian. Is it not the case that, when QCMM (ESP) purchased shares in Pan Australian Senator Parer was not only a shareholder in the company but also Chairman of Directors? Prime Minister, how could the Minister for Resources and Energy be unaware of his significant shareholding and financial interest in gold, nickel, diamonds, copper, cobalt, lead, zinc and silver and fail to disclose it or divest it on becoming a minister?1280Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I table the following documents: a letter dated 23 March 1998 from Senator Parer to me; a letter dated 19 March from Nevitts Ltd Stockbrokers and Financial Planners; a letter dated 22 September 1995 from the former minister for resources, the member for Rankin, addressed to Mr K. Talbot, the Chief Executive, Advance Queensland Resources and Mining Pty Ltd; a letter to me dated 23 March 1998 signed by Mr H. W. Shand; a record of conversation of a meeting between the Minister for Resources and Energy and representatives of various Japanese resource companies to which I referred in an earlier answer; a file note signed by Mr David Whitrow dated 20 March 1998, which deals with the meetings in Japan that took place in October 1996; and a minute dated 19 March 1998 from Mr Tim Mackey, the Executive Director of the Resources and Energy Group to the Minister for Resources and Energy which details, in a very painstaking fashion, the various decisions relating to the coal industry in which the minister was involved. I also table various additional minutes dealing with those matters. A careful perusal of those will provide answers to the honourable member's question.12811281Broadbent, Russell, MPMr BROADBENTMT4McMillanLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer advise the House of the principles that the government is following to lower the burden of taxation on all Australians? Will the Treasurer also inform the House of the government's response to alternative propositions on tax cuts?1281Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for his question and I acknowledge his interest in and expertise on tax matters. He would know that this government believes in a fairer taxation system for all Australians. We actually believe that parents with children should be given more incentive. We think it is better to have an indirect tax system which is fairer. We want a more internationally competitive business tax system, and we want to make sure that people who are currently avoiding their liabilities have to pay them, which I think is only fair.On Thursday of last week I saw something which we have not seen for a long time; something that gave us all a bit of a shock. We saw from the opposition a policy announcement. It is true; we actually saw a policy announcement from the opposition, and it was in relation to taxation. It was from the so-called economic spokesman of the opposition. He was on Melbourne radio on Thursday of last week and he was asked about the Australian Council of Social Service saying that negative gearing should be abolished, and he said:Well, that's certainly one option that could be contemplated. . . Then the interviewer said:Last time the Labor Government flirted with it, it was a disaster for the rental market . . . The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said:Obviously you've got to think about the implications for the property market, but there are ways of addressing that which are not necessarily across the board and that's one of many, many options that we are certainly considering.So we thought, `Here is a policy from the opposition to abolish negative gearing—the old Keating policy of 1986.' We thought, `Well, that's good. We ought to encourage the opposition to get on with some policy development.' Even though abolishing negative gearing is not a very good idea, it was an announcement and we welcomed it. But that was in the morning. In the afternoon, we actually had a statement from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It said:I was asked today about ACOSS's proposal to abolish negative gearing. We do look seriously at all ACOSS proposals . . . We are not, however, proposing to embrace ACOSS's proposal to end negative gearing.So AM GMT, they are going to abolish negative gearing; PM GMT, they have given up on the policy of abolishing negative gearing. The policy was announced in the morning and abolished by the afternoon, GMT—Gareth mean time. It is a policy that lasts before lunch and gets abolished after lunch. This was the man who said on 17 August 1997 that he was in favour of states biting the bullet on inheritance taxes. On 25 August 1997, he reversed his position. This was the man who, on 13 May, said that the services part of the economy was not pulling its weight and on 21 May said that he was against the services tax. This was the man who said on 1 October that there was a case for increasing revenues and on the afternoon of 1 October was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald as backing down. This is an opposition which cannot hold a position on tax from the morning to the afternoon. The people of Australia are going to ask themselves this question: why is it that the opposition grub around on every issue except a policy? Why is it that they grub around on all these sorts of things? They grub around because they cannot announce a policy on tax, on health or on any other issue.We have a Leader of the Opposition who wants to deliver surplus budgets, while his shadow ministers are promising $6 billion of unfunded promises—$6 billion. We have a Deputy Leader of the Opposition who wants to abolish negative gearing in the morning, and then turns against it in the afternoon.So I was really surprised, after that experience on the Thursday, guess who came out on Meet the Press to announce a new tax policy? It was the old grub man himself, the member for Hotham. He went on Meet the Press on 22 March, last Sunday, after we had had this appearance on negative gearing which had lasted for all of about two hours. He said this: the ability to offer tax cuts is there if we can grow the economy faster. He is out offering tax cuts. So, $6 billion of unfunded promises, a surplus budget, the abolition of negative gearing, and income tax cuts from the spokesman on—what are you the spokesman on?—the manufacturing industry. An R&D syndicate for every Australian; that is what he believes.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. When are you going to enforce your rulings?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think it would be a good idea if the Treasurer were to address his remarks through the chair.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, Mr Speaker. I did, Mr Speaker. An R&D syndicate for every Australian, and income tax cuts as well—Mr Speaker, no wonder they grub around on this kind of stuff.12821282Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall tabling an extract of a letter from Senator Parer, which stated, `Disposal of CSR shares: I discovered that CSR had a 20 per cent interest in Nabalco, which mines bauxite.' Is the Prime Minister also aware that the minister for resources also saw fit to sell his BHP and Santos shares? Prime Minister, if the minister saw a conflict of interest in holding CSR shares because that company had an interest in bauxite mining, and if he saw a conflict in BHP and Santos, why did he not also see a conflict of interest in a company involving gold, nickel, diamond, copper, cobalt, lead, zinc and silver exploration?1282Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is that I do remember tabling that, and I think I also remember saying at the time that the action taken by him in doing that was evidence of good faith.Mr Crean interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—You say `Yes'; you are right on this occasion. It was evidence of good faith, and it is very apparent—and it will be very apparent when the honourable member for Hotham reads it—from the very detailed letter that Senator Parer has sent to me.Mr Crean interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is very interesting that the honourable member makes reference to QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd. The reference to that particular company was contained in the return that he provided to me. Can I just read from the letter that was written to me by Senator Parer. Under the subheading of QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd, it states:As outlined above, I personally hold 44 shares in QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd. These are worth approximately $56,300. There was no disbursement in 1996-97 and only one disbursement in 1995-96 on 14 November 1995.If I remember rightly, the member for Rankin was the Minister for Resources on 14 November 1995. Listen to this:The disbursement was for $533.85. The only reason the disbursement took place was the departure of a former principal shareholder. QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd was a vehicle for investment in listed shares and property with a view to building a portfolio of assets for distribution to the participating employees at a time deemed to be appropriate by the directors of the company. The shareholding is maintained and is akin to a `preserved benefit' which applies in the superannuation industry.The company was established on the basis of professional advice in 1993 as an employer sponsored investment plan designed to offer an efficient savings mechanism for employees and directors of participating employers as an alternative to superannuation.Once again, there is no evidence of any conflict of interest.12831283McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNP10—My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Will the minister advise the House of the ramifications of the nine-day strike in Sydney tomorrow, proposed by the Maritime Union bosses? Can the minister also advise the House what position the government has taken in relation to the strike? What is the government's response to the position taken by certain other parties in the dispute?1283Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Gippsland for his question.BV5ADAMSMr Adams—It's a very one-sided view at the moment.WI4Mr REITH—If there is a one-sided view, it is because we have not as yet heard a point of view from the Labor opposition. The government condemns this strike action; we condemn this action outright. It is about time the Labor Party had what it takes to stand up in the national interest and also condemn this campaign of vengeance and greed being run by the MUA. The reason we have not heard from this weak and pathetic Leader of the Opposition is that he is bound hand and foot to the MUA and he is unable to condemn their tactics.As a further example of the guerilla tactics of these people, last week we were told they were going to run an eight-day campaign, starting this week. So the company has to reschedule, starting from tomorrow, and divert ships and provide for all the other damage associated with this strike. Now we find the MUA announcing this morning that it is calling off the first 24 hours of the strike—as if that makes any difference. The damage is already done, and these people in the Labor opposition again have failed to condemn the strike.The union well knows that the company will be unable to reschedule ships at the last moment, and it again highlights the fact that these people are running a guerilla campaign. Their official reason for doing so is that they are seeking a wage increase of $4,500 on top of their second demand, which is to take all the rorts, inefficiencies, allowances and overtime and build them into a base rate which today already gives them an average salary of $74,000 a year.This is nothing other than a campaign being run by the leadership of the MUA against the company which employs many of their members. I say to the rank and file: you are jeopardising your own jobs by running a campaign against your employer. In the meantime a lot of companies and a lot of small businesses will suffer unnecessary damage as a result of this vengeful campaign. Nothing could better sum it up than the comments of Dennis Cahill, who is an exporter who has been in the business for 40 years. This is what he said on radio last week:Well, I mean the costs really come down to costs of interest and usage of funds, additional time where your containers are held at the terminal. But more importantly is of course the question of your overseas buyers and once you lose their confidence, they'll turn their attention elsewhere and we lose—we could lose market share and therefore we get—we are then forced to sell product possibly at a lower level to keep it moving.That is the voice of someone who is actually in the business. I think what he says is commonsense. It is another reason why the Labor opposition should be ashamed at their inability to support a bloke like this who is genuinely out there looking after his business, giving other people jobs and boosting export income for Australia.What is the Labor Party's policy on this? I could barely believe my ears when I heard the Leader of the Opposition asked the other day what his policy response was. His response was, firstly, basically to do nothing until the next election and then, secondly, if Labor were to be re-elected what would he do? He would bring back Bob Hawke. The then Minister for Finance and now Leader of the Opposition would bring back his great mate Hawkie. You were in the cabinet together. You were the people who oversaw the last reform process, which cost of $420 million and never fixed the problem. You have the cheek, the audacity to suggest that we bring back Bob Hawke. We might as well bring back Laurie Brereton. If you have a problem with the deficit, if your policy is to have a surplus, bring back Kim Beazley, the $10½ billion deficit man.I conclude by re-emphasising the extent of the problems on the waterfront and the failure of the unions and the Labor Party to address our need for productivity. It was rammed home to me in what will be the rort of the day in the bulletin on the Internet and available to all. In January a ship was being stevedored in Fremantle on 21 and 22 January. It was interesting to see that in the first shift they moved 10.4 containers an hour. In the second shift the rate was 16.8 containers an hour. To show you that these blokes can really move containers when they put their minds to it, in the last shift they moved 29.7 containers an hour. For Fremantle this is basically world record stuff—29.7 containers.DT4CREANMr Crean—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is sheer repetition.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?DT4CREANMr Crean—The point of order is the length of the answer, Mr Speaker, which concerns your ruling. I would ask you to enforce it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The honourable member for Hotham will resume his seat. The minister will draw his answer to a conclusion.WI4Mr REITH—I will certainly do that, Mr Speaker. The deal basically is that you get paid for the whole shift, and if you finish early you still get paid for the whole shift. The explanation for this one was that the blokes were going to go down to the pub to see the strip show after work. They were going to do that, and therefore they had a real incentive. The incentive was to get to the strip show at the local pub. It shows you again what an absolute outrage the latest strike action in Sydney really is.12841284Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I guess one day we will see you come up with something that is equivalent to Senator Parer's rorts.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will ask his question or resume his seat.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it follows the $1.7 billion failure resulting from the collapse of his health rebate policy and the collapse of his Premiers Conference. Does the Prime Minister recall claiming last Friday that his Medicare agreement offer to the states would provide a 15 per cent real increase in health care funding? Is it not correct that, once you take out the $800 million you took off public hospitals in the 1996 budget, the $400 million you took off the states by abolishing the Commonwealth dental health care program, the money already in the forward estimates and the money that you are double counting for mental health and palliative care, your offer does nothing more than put back the money you have already taken away? Are these the real reasons the Premiers walked out on you last Friday in the shortest Premiers Conference ever?1284Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. The first thing that ought to be understood is that, when it comes to health policy, there is one thing that Kim Beazley wants to do: he wants to abolish the health insurance rebate. Every family in Australia ought to know that, if the Leader of the Opposition were to win the next election, the first thing he would do would be to abolish the health insurance rebate. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that there has been no double counting. The only person who did some double counting—in fact, he did more than double counting—was the Leader of the Opposition when he misled the Australian public before the last election about the size of the deficit; the man who left us with a $10½ billion deficit having gone through the election campaign with his former leader, Mr Keating, ensuring the Australian public—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order which goes to relevance. I was asking the Prime Minister a question about the specifics of the agreements that he sought to meet with the Premiers. If he is going to go on about that, he might talk about the $25 billion he concealed in 1983.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—We are talking here about health care agreements; we are not talking about payments to the states regarding dental treatment. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that there has been no double counting in relation to palliative care. The fact remains that the offer made by the Commonwealth government to the states at the Premiers Conference last week was by any measure a fair and generous offer. It represented an increase of 15 per cent—I repeat: it represented a 15 per cent increase—in real terms over a five-year period. For the first time, this agreement contained an adjustment factor relating to people who may drop out of private health insurance in the future. Unlike the agreement negotiated by the former government, it provided for reimbursement of $83 million a year to the states for any one per cent further reduction in the number of people covered by private health insurance.We can be absolutely certain that if we want to preserve existing membership of private health insurance funds, the last party the Australian public would embrace is the Labor Party because its first policy priority in health is to abolish the private health insurance rebate. It wants to take away from the families of Australia the $450-a-year subsidy that my government introduced in July last year.Not only has there been a real increase in the health funding grants made by the Commonwealth to the states, but also, when you look at the totality of Commonwealth payments to the states, you get a very interesting comparison. If you project forward to 1998-99 and compare that to the current financial year, you will see that the states' total revenue, according to the fiscal outlook, is expected to rise by 1.9 per cent. About 41 per cent of the states' revenue comes from the Commonwealth all sources. The remainder of about 59 per cent comes from the states' own revenue raising sources. Interestingly enough, of that 1.9 per cent overall increase in the states' total revenue, the Commonwealth's contribution of 41 per cent will rise by three per cent in a climate of zero inflation but the states' own source revenue will rise by only 1.9 per cent.In other words, what is happening under my government is that, in relation to the payments the Commonwealth makes to the states, we are being more generous and are making a greater contribution to the states than the states themselves are prepared to make in their revenue raising efforts. In reply to the Leader of the Opposition, I will quote the member for Fremantle—it has not been often in this place that I have. There is a quote that she made when she was minister for health that caught my eye a moment ago.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Tell us about today's editorial.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I think the member for Batman, the member for Hotham and the member for Dobell will be very interested indeed when I read this. In parliament on 28 March 1995 she made this statement:It is not just that we are putting in more; the states are actually taking funding out.. . . . . . . . .We are seeing money going in through the Medicare agreements—very substantial increases—to provide access for public patients but the states are pulling it out of the bottom drawer.. . . . . . . . .The reality is that the states have not only been withdrawing effort but also, in addition to that, shifting costs to the Commonwealth budget—and also to the private health insurance funds and consumers.The reality is that when the Leader of the Opposition was the finance minister in the former government, he completely agreed with that assessment made by the then minister for health regarding the respective contributions of the Commonwealth and the states. I think the states were foolish in the extreme to have walked out of the Premiers Conference, but I make it very clear to the patients of Australia and to the public of Australia: you will not suffer because of the petulance of the premiers. Every single dollar contained in the offer that we made will be delivered in full and on time. We will not lack generosity to the patients of Australia. We will not allow the petulant walk-out by the premiers of Australia to divert us from the obligation that we owe to the Australian people. We are increasing their hospital funding by 15 per cent in real terms.The states were irresponsible to walk out. I do not believe they served the interests of their electors and the interests of the health systems in their states. They badly let them down. I say to the Australian people: we will stand by you; we will not desert you; you will get every dollar that we have offered.12861286Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of a report on Australia's youth issued by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum on Friday? What are the implications of the report's findings about employment, education and training opportunities for young people?1286Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the member for Aston for his question. I am aware of the report by the Dusseldorp Skills Forum which shows the full extent of the betrayal of young people in this country over the decade that the report covers—1985 to 1996. It highlights the collapse in apprenticeship opportunities that occurred under the previous government. It shows the collapse in the pathway from school to full-time employment—the number of young people in full-time employment fell from 32 per cent to 17 per cent of the age group. It shows that the proportion of young people in TAFE fell from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. It shows that, in addition to the teenagers trapped in unemployment, over 100,000 teenagers were trapped in a cycle of marginal employment and unemployment or had dropped out of the labour force altogether. The report refers to the fact that opportunities had `deteriorated at an accelerating rate'. There had been a reversal of improvements and no progress at all compared to other groups in society.The Leader of the Opposition ought to provide an explanation to the young people and parents of this country as to why he allowed this situation to develop. He was the minister for employment and the minister for education during this period, and he did nothing to address these fundamental structural problems which were being faced by young people. This report totally vindicates the government's determination to rebuild that pathway from school to employment for young people. That is why this year Australia's first national apprenticeship system is up and running. That is why this year Australia's first national literacy plan is up and running and all the states and territories have agreed to a national standard for literacy. That is why we are now bringing about a revolution in the senior years of schooling to have schools increasingly act as employment agencies for their young people, and now over 1,000 high schools are participating in this plan.The Leader of the Opposition as employment minister disadvantaged young people. Now he has the gall to want to be Prime Minister of this country. If Labor were ever to come to power, the greatest sufferers would be young people, and there is no chance the people will put you in as Prime Minister if they care for the future of young people in this country.12861286Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—My question is directed to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development. Having regard to the fact that your predecessor said to the House on 29 May 1997 regarding aircraft movements over Sydney that the Liberal government would `accurately share the noise across Sydney', does the minister acknowledge that the long-term operating plan for Sydney airport will increase and has in fact dramatically increased jet departures over residential areas of Sydney? Does the minister acknowledge that the long-term operating plan deliberately seeks to increase the percentage of jet departures over residential areas of Sydney by 300 per cent from a planned 15 per cent previously to 45 per cent? On what basis can the minister assure the House and the one million residents of Sydney who are aircraft noise affected that the plan is fair and equitable?1287Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—I thank the member for Lowe for his question. From the outset, I will say that the government remains committed to the long-term operating plan as far as fairly and equitably sharing and distributing aircraft noise around Sydney is concerned. I might point out to the House that on 14 February 1997 the member for Lowe actually indicated that in a release he put out. He said:The Coalition Government is delivering solutions by equitably spreading the aircraft noise burden.ZK6ZAMMITMr Zammit—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specific, and I ask you to ask the minister to respond to my specific request.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister is in order. I call the minister.SU5Mr VAILE—He continued:I have strongly endorsed the flight plan to the minister and look forward to its early implementation.From the outset, the government has remained committed to implementing this policy without fear or favour. It is a process that is being progressively implemented and is being supported by the community and by both sides of politics. It is all about achieving the targets that we identified early in the piece. Those targets are 55 per cent of movements to the south over water—that is what the member for Lowe wants us to achieve; 17 per cent to the north—that is over his electorate, the Prime Minister's electorate, the member for Grayndler's electorate and the member for Sydney's electorate; 15 per cent to the west; and 13 per cent to the east.That is in stark contrast to the former minister, the member for Kingsford-Smith, when he had one per cent going to the east and nearly 50 per cent going to the north—50 per cent going over the member for Lowe's electorate, 50 per cent going over the electorates of the member for Grayndler and the member for Sydney. That could not be termed as being fair. What our government has set out to achieve here, and we are well on the way to achieving it, is a fair sharing of the noise from Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport around the clock. We are well on the way to achieving those targets, and our government will do that without fear or favour.Just recently, as I am sure the member for Lowe is well aware, as we are implementing this policy progressively, with the endorsement of the Sydney Airport Community Forum as well as with the safety checks that Airservices Australia apply to each one of the new modes of operation, there have been new modes that have been suggested by SACF, and they go exactly to the point that the member for Lowe raises—generating more take-offs and so more noise over the water, over Botany Bay. I put it to the member for Lowe that he jumped ship a bit too soon, because we are implementing what we set out to implement and we are delivering on that policy.12871287Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, figures released last week reveal that Australia currently enjoys its lowest level of working days lost per 1,000 employees since before the First World War. Would you advise the House how this has happened and what would be the result if alternative industrial relations policies were to be introduced?1287Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The industrial disputes figures that came out last week show the best result since before World War I. What an interesting contrast that makes, because look at what the ACTU was saying before the last election. The Canberra Times headline was `Union Chief Predicts IR War' and in the Age it was `Unions Prepare for IR War'. Not to be outdone, the member for Hotham got a run. He had `Crean Backs Wage War Threat' in the Australian a couple of days later.So before the last election we were told that, if the coalition was elected, basically it would be mayhem, there would be industrial chaos, the country would be paralysed by economic warfare orchestrated by the trade union movement. What has happened? Have we had industrial war, as predicted by the Labor Party? No. What has happened is that we have had an outbreak of industrial peace unparalleled since records were first kept. Not only have we had the best numbers per 1,000 employees since before World War I; we have also had the actual lowest number of disputes since back to 1940, since before the Second World War.What a fantastic record that is. Of course, Labor's record makes an interesting contrast. The average number, when Labor was in office, was 190 working days lost per thousand employees. Under us it has been 74.An incident having occurred in the gallery—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It ought to be recognised that attendants in this place have their duties to perform, and that is what they are doing.WI4Mr REITH—Last year the member for Canberra said that our legislation, the Workplace Relations Act, would be tested on a number of criteria, including how many disputes there were. We now hold the world record for the lowest level of industrial disputes.Why has the Workplace Relations Act been so successful? The reason is that we now have decent bans in the Trade Practices Act against sympathy strikes or secondary boycotts. The Labor Party's policy is to repeal the very provisions of the Trade Practices Act which have given us industrial harmony. They will also repeal the provisions which provide a ban on primary boycotts affecting international trade. They will also abolish, we believe, from what they said last week, the provisions which prevent people being rewarded for taking industrial provisions—the same provisions we have federally as Bob Carr has in New South Wales Labor. They would abolish the Office of the Employment Advocate, which is a great help to people who want to have real choice as to whether they are in a union or not. That is another factor which has led to industrial peace that Labor will abolish. Lastly, under our legislation, we allow people to sit down at work and harmoniously enter into an Australian workplace agreement. What is the Labor Party's policy? Their policy is to repeal that provision. Under us, we do now have record low levels of industrial disputes. That is a function of the excellent Workplace Relations Act. We now have it officially from the Labor Party that they will repeal the very provisions that have given us this fantastic outcome.12881288Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware that a South Australian company, Workskil Inc., was awarded employment contracts potentially worth $6 million to $10 million? Has the minister been told that Workskil Inc. could not pay employer contributions for at least six months last year on superannuation; has had telephone, fax lines and electricity cut off; has changed bankers at least three times in the last two years; and has twice delayed handing out the first prize, a BMW car, in a fundraising lottery because it did not have the cash to purchase the prize? Is the minister aware that employees of Workskil Inc.—and I know it is a joke on the other side of the House—have had to interview disabled clients in the stairwell of their Edwardstown head office because, contrary to tender regulations, they do not have disabled access facilities? A real joke! Minister, how did Workskil Inc. get a contract?1288Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—We have seen the willingness of the opposition to drag into the parliament the names of specific businesses which they are seeking to vilify without any specific fact whatever. There is no cause for concern over the tender processes that have been run by the government. We have heard a reference to the amount that a particular contract might be worth. Let me repeat that no-one in the Job Network gets any money for filling a job vacancy unless a person is put into that job. Money is paid by results; it is based on performance. It is the first time that performance pay of this kind has been introduced. Let me also make the point that every successful tenderer was subjected to the most rigorous financial scrutiny.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked a very specific question based on very specific facts. I ask you to ask him to address the question and deal with the facts rather than rambling around and not dealing with the facts.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order.BT4Dr KEMP—This tenderer and every other tenderer would have been subjected to the most rigorous financial scrutiny and also rigorous scrutiny as to the quality of their particular proposals. Every tenderer was subject to scrutiny as to their experience. Where they had no previous experience in delivering labour market programs for the previous government they had to submit references that were investigated; they had to deliver a strategy to help unemployed people that had to stand out as an excellent strategy; and they had to demonstrate their capacity to give access. Thirty per cent of all the tenderers in the Job Network have been tendered to provide services to specific groups of unemployed people, including disabled people and including this—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. A very specific set of questions was asked about one company in relation to this. We have to put up with enough abuse at great length on this side of the House without actually having to put up with it on this occasion. Relevance is obviously at stake here.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—There is no point of order. There is no reason why a minister should not answer a question in general as long as the answer pertains to the matters which are canvassed in the question.BT4Dr KEMP—The people of Adelaide will have access to many more services to place unemployed people in jobs than they have had under the CES. They will have access to more specialised services. They will have access to services that are paid on results. I am not going to accept the particular facts that the member for Batman has put forward in relation to this tenderer without investigation. But I do say that it is quite inappropriate for the Labor Party to be dragging before this House the names of specific businesses which may damage them in the course of their business and which, if repeated outside the House, may subject the Labor Party to some action on the part of those businesses.12891289Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Status of Women. Will the minister inform the House of any government initiatives aimed at increasing women's participation in the electoral process?1289Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLPStatus of Women10—I thank the member for Dawson for her question. At the last election the Liberal and National parties made history in this place by presiding over the largest number of women ever elected to the federal parliament. This was done without the introduction of a quota system. We have no intention of introducing a quota system to get more women into parliament, but we do have every intention of increasing the number of women in parliament.We have historically had the support of women voters in the community, and we will continue to have the support of those voters because the unprecedented number of women who have been elected to our side of this House are continuing to effectively represent the interests of women in the community. This government is also giving to Australian women issues of substance. We are looking at issues of substance for Australian women, unlike Labor, who simply talked about issues to do with women.We will not patronise women. Despite the patronising quotas and the cheap talk of Labor about getting more women into this parliament, Labor is preoccupied with a preselection process which is dominated by bitter brawls and standover tactics. The level of dissatisfaction within the Labor women's ranks is unprecedented. We have seen a public protest by Labor women in the seat of Melbourne Ports—an unprecedented public protest. They were protesting against the preselection of Michael Danby in the seat of Melbourne—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—What's this got to do with it?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will direct her response to the question asked. She seems to be wandering a little from the subject.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—The fact is that Labor women have spoken out. It is not the first episode we have seen in their preselection process. Jacki Willox was forced to quit, and Mr Danby said that—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the specific question. She is getting way off beam at the moment.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—When Labor women complained about Mr Danby's—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will answer the question. You really are way off the question at the moment, Minister.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Before the minister responds, if members of the opposition wish the minister to reply, I suggest they keep quiet.Mrs Crosio interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Prospect will keep quiet. Minister, could you respond to the question and not go onto extraneous matters.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—As I have said, we made history in this place with the unprecedented number of women who were elected, and we have done it without quotas and we have done it without the so-called Emily's List. I note with interest that the Labor Party have said they will now use $40,000 from Emily's List to inquire into why women are not supporting the Labor Party. Mr Speaker, I can tell you why they are not supporting Labor.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister is making a mockery of your repeated rulings on the question of relevance.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I ask the minister to resume her answer but, in doing so, to address the question and to draw her answer to completion.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—It is these kinds of patronising processes that send a very strong signal to women out in the community that Labor have turned their backs on women, and that is something that we will not do. We will put in place processes that support women and address the real issues that affect women and their lives.12901290McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that at least 3,000 workers have now lost their legal entitlements due to corporate insolvency and that their losses now amount to over $20 million? Apart from rhetorical flourishes and attempts to shift the blame, what action do you propose to take to assist the workers who have lost their entitlements, including those workers from Woodlawn whom you would not meet today, and to make sure it never happens again? You have been determined to ensure that Senator Parer keeps his job and his $2 million. What will you do—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will address his question in accordance with the standing orders.5I4Mr McMULLAN—I am, Mr Speaker. What will you do, Prime Minister, for these workers who have lost their jobs and their $20 million?1290Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am interested that the member for Canberra has asked that question. Can I just say a couple of things in reply. The first thing I would say in reply is: what did you do for the 13 years that you were in power? Nothing.Mr McMullan interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Canberra will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—What did you do? You drove unemployment to 11.3 per cent, you created the greatest postwar recession in Australia's history and you have the nerve to get up—FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Prime Minister is asking—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—What is your point of order?FI4MORRISMr Allan Morris—The Prime Minister appears to be asking you a question, Mr Speaker. Would you please answer it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order. The Prime Minister is answering the question.ZD4Mr HOWARD—After 13 years in office you in the Labor Party bequeathed to us the very law that you are now saying should be further changed. Once again it is a matter that you were going to do it in the fourteenth year. You had 13 years to fix the law; you did absolutely nothing to fix it and now you are turning around and you are saying that we ought to do something in our first two years that you refused to do for the 13 years that you were in power.The only mate you have left in office—and that is Bob Carr—has huffed and puffed about this. I think it is very interesting. This is the priority the Labor Party really has on this issue. Bob Carr wrote to me before the Premiers Conference and he said, `Would you mind listing this on the agenda of the Premiers Conference?' I wrote back and said, `Yes, I am happy to discuss it.' What happened? He spat the dummy and walked out before we reached it.Not only did certain premiers walk out because they did not want to discuss guns but, in the case of Bob Carr, he walked out because he was not sincere. He was totally and utterly insincere. Bob Carr is the master of release first and sign later. The letters he writes to me are in the press gallery before he has signed them. That is his normal practice. Can I say in relation to the substance of the issue which I and I think are all members on my side of the House are genuinely interested in—we are not posturing on it—that I have done a number of things. In relation to the latest Woodlawn incident, we are doing what we have done in relation to Cobar; that is, institute an ASC examination of the activities of the company concerned.You know that when you were in government you examined the possibility of altering the order of application of assets in the event of the insolvency of a company—and you as a Labor government specifically rejected doing the very thing that the retrenched workers are now asking us to do. Let me repeat that for the benefit of the parliament and for the benefit of the member for Canberra: you examined this issue and you specifically rejected the idea of altering the order of the application of assets so that retrenchment pay would rank ahead of secured creditors. You did that for solid com mercial reasons. You are a hypocrite for now suggesting that we should do it.12911291Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Has the minister seen a report in today's press concerning an announcement on the withdrawal of the Australian contingent in the Gulf? Is the report accurate? Can the minister advise the House of the current situation and the government's intentions in relation to the deployment?1291McLachlan, Ian, MPMr McLACHLANHT4BarkerLPDefence10—I thank the member for Macquarie for his question. I have seen several reports on this subject.Opposition members interjecting—HT4Mr McLACHLAN—You are not suggesting that I take either of the two former Ministers for Defence instead, are you? There was a report in the Age this morning which suggests that the Prime Minister is expected to announce on Anzac Day the withdrawal of our troops, to apply not long after that. It is news to the Prime Minister and it is news to me; and it is utterly without foundation. When these reports come forward, they should be knocked down.The Australian government took the decision to commit a contingent to the Gulf, based on our grave concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. UNSCOM must be allowed to do its job, to meet the United Nations obligations under the UN Security Council resolutions, in particular 678 and 687. We will be there for as long as it takes. As at 23 March, today, there were 168 Australians deployed overseas on this operation. Of these, 167 are in the coalition area of operations. We have Special Forces personnel there together with the New Zealanders—we have 94 and they have 23. They are in Kuwait and some of them are patrolling the Kuwait border and on mounted patrols. When Iraq provides unfettered access to the sites and is prepared to allow UNSCOM to complete its work then the coalition will, in consultation with our partners, look at withdrawing our forces—but not before. I have recently spoken to the US Secretary for Defense, Bill Cohen, and he has verified that the Americans will be in the Gulf, as will we, for as long as it takes.12921292Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given the ongoing flood of revelations on the matter of Senator Parer's resources interests, given that your code of conduct specifically rules out holding shares in the area of portfolio responsibility, given that there is absolutely no reference in any of the papers tabled today in either house to Pan Australian Resources NL, and given the secretary to your department has cleared Senator Parer on at least three separate occasions, were you advised whether that clearance extended to his interest in Pan Australian and will you now table all of Mr Moore-Wilton's advice to you?1292Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Can I say, in relation to the last part of the question, that it has long been the practice of both sides of politics that in relation to the details of disclosures that are made by ministers to prime ministers—and this was a practice followed by both my Labor predecessors and also by the former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser—that documentation is kept confidential. I do not intend to table any of that information any more than Bob Hawke, Paul Keating or Malcolm Fraser would have tabled any of it. I think the idea that we should be tabling that kind of information is absolutely ridiculous. The answer, therefore, is no.12921292Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. How will the government's proposed changes to unfair dismissal legislation affect small businesses in Australia? What effect could opposition to these reforms have on the employees of small businesses?1292Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Sturt for his question. It truly would be a tragedy if the Senate rejected again the government's bill to provide an exemption for small business from the operations of the unfair dismissal law. It was Rob Bastian of COSBOA who said some time ago that the passage of this legislation would encourage the small busi ness community to create something like 50,000 jobs. The refusal by the Senate to pass this legislation will cost Australian jobs to the tune of 50,000. Therefore the onus is on the Labor Party and the Democrats to think again about this legislation and pass it.The Labor Party would have you believe that this matter is a low priority, that it is of little interest to the small business community. All the evidence is irrefutable on this issue: it is a matter of real significance to the small business community. We have helped a lot with the Workplace Relations Act changes that we have already made. The number of applications in the federal jurisdiction is down by half, so there are something like 7,000 or 8,000 businesses out there that today do not have an unfair dismissal claim because of the changes we have already made.Small business is different from big business and the parliament should recognise that. It is time we had a fair break for the small business community. The State Chamber of Commerce in New South Wales has just released a survey. In a press release dated yesterday it says:An overwhelming 85% of small businesses have nominated unfair dismissals as a key factor affecting businesses with 15 or fewer employees.It also says:Over 42% of businesses believed that the prospect of an unfair dismissal claim was a deterrent to employing more staff.Katie Lahey, who runs the chamber, also said:One third of the businesses interviewed indicated that they had experience with an unfair dismissal claim and of these 51% felt that the current law was a deterrent to employing new staff.This is just commonsense backed up by clear, unequivocal survey evidence which proves it. Yesterday the Sun-Herald reported a survey from Recruitment Solutions. It was a survey of the pharmaceutical companies and related industry sector. The Sun-Herald report says this:The survey taken over the past three months showed 22.2 per cent of companies in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, chemicals, engineering and health care cancelled or suspended plans to recruit a permanent staff member as a direct result of the unfair dismissal legislation. If the Labor Party again refuse this sensible measure for the benefit of the small business community—a measure which would create 50,000 jobs in the small business community—they will reveal again the incredible political cynicism which lies behind their policy. This is against the interests of small business. Anybody who genuinely wants to see more jobs created should vote for this measure and anybody who votes against it, as the Labor Party are determined to, is simply not fair dinkum when it comes to creating jobs.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Questions Without Notice129312931293Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I was asked a question relating to QCMM(ESP) Pty Ltd by the member for Hotham. The question was predicated, as I understood it, on the proposition that Senator Parer was the chairman of that company after he was a minister. I want to make it very plain that he was not. He resigned it.Censure Motion1293129315:27:001293Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith that this House:(1) notes that the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Max Moore-Wilton, has apparently certified in writing that Senator Parer's confidential declaration of interests are in compliance with the guidelines on ministerial responsibility, and that the Prime Minister has accepted this advice;(2) notes that, notwithstanding this clearance by Mr Moore-Wilton and, ultimately, the Prime Minister, considerable evidence of a conflict of interest involving the Minister has emerged, which the Minister has belatedly recognised, by attempting to divest himself of some of the private interests in question; and (3) calls on the Prime Minister to table in the Parliament all of the advices by Mr Moore-Wilton on the compliance with the guidelines by the Minister for Resources and Energy with respect to his pecuniary interests.We have had submitted to the parliament today, via the efforts of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and Senator Parer in the other place, an absolute flood of documentation. The more you read it the more it puts the minister firmly in the gun on this matter. This is a man with an apparent conflict of interest; this is a man with a real conflict of interest; this is a man with a conflict of interest that takes him well beyond any reasonable interpretation of the ministerial guidelines established by the Prime Minister—so proudly in the first instance but we noted in that extraordinary interview with Lyneham on Friday evening that he is prepared now to concede that apparently that set of interests, that declaration, was the practice of previous governments.There is one set of documents, however, that has not been tabled here and those are documents that go to the state of the examination made by the head of the Prime Minister's department, the content of that examination and the advice that he tendered to the Prime Minister on that matter, which is now thoroughly germane to this issue as it proceeds and unfolds to this point and as it will proceed and unfold over the next couple of days.To refresh people's memory on why it is important to understand how the head of the Prime Minister's department and the Prime Minister choose to interpret these documents, I go back to the guidelines of ministerial conduct. The reason we must have a suspension of standing orders is so that we can compare those considerations of Mr Max Moore-Wilton and the Prime Minister with the standards of conduct that they are obliged to examine. That is the whole point of having that documentation tabled.The matters that they must examine go to this. It says:It is vital that ministers and parliamentary secretaries do not by their conduct undermine public confidence in . . . the government. It goes on at another point to say:Although their public lives encroach upon their private lives, it is important that ministers and parliamentary secretaries avoid giving any appearance of using public office for private purposes.Any appearance of using public office. It goes on:The nature of their duties is such that they may need to have regard to the interests of members of their immediate families (to the extent that ministers know their interests) as well as their own when ensuring that no conflict or apparent conflict between interests and duties arises.No conflict or apparent conflict. It is preceded by a paragraph that deals with the question of giving any appearance.Having gone through the circumstances it lays down for resigning directorships—and we have already seen that at the very least Senator Parer was tardy in a number of aspects of that particular requirement upon him—we come to the absolute clincher, that section which has not permitted a single editorial writer in this country to walk around the proposition that the Prime Minister has decided to extend a new level of crony capitalism in this country to one of his mates. No editorial writer, no commentator, has seen any way for the Prime Minister to walk around this point.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the honourable leader that he is moving a very narrow motion.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—And we wonder how Max Moore-Wilton has managed to walk around it, which is why we want to see his documents. That provision says:. 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.Nothing there about having to minutely examine a conflict of interest or establish a decision related to a particular company in order to establish a conflict of interest. It simply says you get out. That is what this says. It goes on—and this will be an interesting thing to examine against those letters that have been tabled here today, as we will have an opportunity to do as the week goes on:The transfer of interests to a family member or to a nominee or trust is not an acceptable form of divestment.It is not an acceptable form of divestment.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the Leader of the Opposition that this is a suspension of standing orders.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—So the question arises, when it is as plain as the nose on your face to any person who understands the English language and to any person who has a modicum of understanding of the issues relating to accountability in this place, why that has not been apparent to Mr Max Moore-Wilton and to the Prime Minister in their private confabulations on this matter. Are we to assume that the Prime Minister and Mr Max Moore-Wilton have been misled or did they in fact know about these things?It may be, and it may be not, the case that the documents that we are asking for here today, which have not been included amongst that flood of documents related to his private interests which have appeared on the table—and I would have thought that the waiver that the Prime Minister refused to give on tabling this further information on the basis of past practice would scarcely apply in circumstances with the flood of private documentation that we have received here today—would have obviated that particular argument.We would expect that in defending himself the Prime Minister would be able to point to how Mr Max Moore-Wilton has gone through Pan Australian Resources and examined them uphill and down dale and made absolutely certain that there was no potential conflict of interest and that the minister was not engaged in any shareholding in relation to his portfolio—precisely the matter that Mr Max Moore-Wilton was obliged to inspect.We would probably find from that documentation some sort of analysis done by Mr Max Moore-Wilton of QCMM (ESP) shares in Australian resources. We would have also seen no doubt the examination that he has made of the interests in coalmining in Jellinbah in the Bowen Basin. Indeed, we would find an analysis of any of those interests in that whole plethora of resources operations that the minister has now evidently found himself in some way or another involved with. This is an absolutely essential part of this parliament's task. This parliament is absolutely obligated to ensure an enforcement and upholding of standards.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is a suspension of standing orders; not the substantive motion.DT4CREANMr Crean—Ah, come on!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will remain silent.Mr Albanese interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Grayndler will withdraw that.R36ALBANESEMr Albanese—I withdraw.DT4CREANMr Crean—I didn't even hear that.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will remain silent if he wishes to remain in the House.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Unless we get a suspension of standing orders to enable the House to consider the Max Moore-Wilton documentation, along with all the other documentation which has been tabled, it will not be possible for the House to make a complete judgment on the material that was tabled here in this chamber today.I would have thought that it stuck out to all honourable members that that was what was required here. We would find out whether Max Moore-Wilton took it a point further and saw whether or not the family shareholding in Gashbah Pty Ltd, Spanlex—and remember you do not divest to somebody else under the terms and conditions of Mr Howard's propositions—Aquatec Environmental Ltd, Maxcon Industries, Sunshine Water, Kemkay and Auswater Ltd also had some mention in the Max Moore-Wilton correspondence.We would find out whether an opportunity would arise therefore to contrast the minister's performance in relation to CSR. He exited CSR because he thought it might affect a decision or be seen to be affecting a decision he had taken in relation to bauxite mining. What the heck is the difference between that and all the other linking companies that have been revealed here today—companies front and centre linked to just about every conceivable resource except oil? But do not worry about it, we are working on that one. Every other conceivable resource that is mined in this country in some way or another related to the minister's interests.Frankly, if they are in the Max Moore-Wilton documents, the Prime Minister is culpable. If they are not in the Max Moore-Wilton documents, we ask ourselves: what the hell is he doing? Why is the secretary to the Prime Minister's department clearing people when there is this amount of information available to them? (Time expired)10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?DT4CREANMr Crean—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:37:001295Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I am delighted to speak now, and I thank the member for Hotham (Mr Crean) for bringing me on whilst I still have a captive audience on the other side. What a disappointment to the opposition today's question time must be. They spent days building up expectations. They were going to drop the biggest bucket you have ever seen. They had this bloke on toast, so they said. They were going to have a great week this week. This was the week when muckraking was to go to new lows and bring the government to its knees. Those were the claims being made over the weekend.DT4CREANMr Crean—Is this in accord—Mr Beazley interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Hotham will remain silent. Not much of the Leader of the Opposition's was, either. In terms of the narrow motion, I think that both of you have strayed somewhat from the principal question in relation to the suspension of standing orders.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, it was a faint hope for you to suggest that the member for Hotham could contain himself for many moments longer, because no-one has spent more time over the weekend trying to build up expectations that the Labor Party were going to get Senator Parer, only today to find that the subject of their attack was the fact that when he was involved with this coal company, prior to his becoming a minister, the company decided to set up a share owner ship scheme and he got 44 shares. A share ownership scheme is akin to a superannuation deal where basically you say to the employees, `We will put something away for you for some future time.' What were the circumstances surrounding this?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I remind the minister again that we are on the suspension of standing orders, not on the substantive motion.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—We are, Mr Speaker, but this rather vacuous, empty suspension before the chair raises the implication that there has been a failure to comply with the ministerial guidelines and a failure to pick that up in the independent assessment undertaken by the Secretary to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.My point to you, Mr Speaker, is that the claims being made in respect of this particular company have already all been dealt with. In the end, there is nothing new in this. I thought we were going to get something new. There is nothing new in this. This is old news. This is stuff that was out last week, and the reason it was out last week—or the week before—is that, when Senator Parer before he became the minister had an involvement in this company, this company had something like a superannuation scheme for the employees. This company obviously has made investments on behalf of the employees. So what? This is not big news. This is not a big deal.The challenge for the opposition today was to come forward with some new allegation—an allegation of a conflict of interest. That was the challenge for them, yet it is a challenge that they have not only not met today but failed to meet the whole time this thing has been running. We basically say to the opposition: it is time you either put up or shut up. You have failed to put up now for 10 days. You have had a campaign of muckraking against an honest, decent, hard-working, good minister and you have failed to put up anything whatsoever.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—What rubbish!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You say it is rubbish. The plaintive cry from the humbled Leader of the Opposition—ho, ho!—talks about conflict of interest. His senior colleague, a former cabinet colleague of his in the Senate, Senator Robert Ray, has talked about conflict of interest. This is what the Labor Party says—your colleague in the Senate—about Senator Parer. This is from the Senate Hansard , 11 March 1998. He says:I would never think for a moment that Senator Parer would consciously and directly take a decision affecting the coal industry to directly benefit himself . . . The words I read out make it absolutely clear. They have never had an allegation against Senator Parer that he has been in a conflict of interest situation. You have never had it, and those are the words of your very own colleague in the Senate.When you look at it, what are the allegations that they ultimately need to make? The guts of this whole thing is: why do you have guidelines? You have guidelines so that you can make an assessment of whether or not somebody has been in a position of conflict of interest. That is the reason you have guidelines and, ultimately, commonsense has to prevail. Look at some of the facts and circumstances behind this case. Firstly, on the evidence produced themselves—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—We are on the suspension of standing orders. I remind you that we are not talking on the substantive motion.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I certainly hear what you say and, Mr Speaker, a substantive motion would be necessary if the Labor Party wanted to make some slanderous imputation or inference against the minister. Of course, they sort of do—and they don't. The reason they don't is that they can't, and that is the point I am trying to make. This is a sneaky, sly device by the Labor Party to blacken a name. When you go through, what are the basic facts here? First of all, there has been no conflict of interest. Secondly, I think of relevance to this debate is that at no time has the minister received income from the particular activities the subject of this whole matter. So no conflict of interest has actually been alleged. Secondly, there is no income from the trust. You see, this trust has—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Members of the opposition will remain silent. The minister has the call, but I hope he is addressing the question of suspension of standing orders.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am, Mr Speaker. This trust is a source of income for the adult children of the minister. That is the point of this trust.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This minister is continually disregarding your rulings. You have told him to stick to the matter before the chair; there is nothing in the matter before the chair about the minister's trusts and all this. He knows the minister is guilty. He ought to just come out and say so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Watson will withdraw that remark. He does not know the minister is guilty.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—He sure looks like it, Mr Speaker.10000Reith, Peter, MPMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson will withdraw that innuendo and inference. Do you withdraw it?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I know the minister is guilty but, if the minister at the table does not believe he is guilty, I will withdraw it.10000Reith, Peter, MPMr SPEAKER—Thank you. The honourable member will resume his seat. I have extended the same licence to both the speakers to date, but I assure you both that in days gone by the suspension of standing orders were far more narrowly interpreted than they are today.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, that's a terrible—10000Reith, Peter, MPMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—Mr Speaker, it will test all your patience when they—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, I think that your remarks—10000Reith, Peter, MPMr SPEAKER—You are not arguing my point of order, I trust.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, your remarks were a slur on the member for Cunningham (Mr Martin) and me and I want you to withdraw them.10000Reith, Peter, MPMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. You have not established a point of order. I made the remark that we are now essentially debating a suspension of standing orders. Some licence has been given to the Leader of the Opposition and some licence is now being given to the Leader of the House.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Cancel his licence.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—We are always charitable.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The member for Hotham seeks similar licence and, as the chief muckraker for the opposition, licence is what he will be after. The opposition has manipulated points of order to deprive me of my time, but I do say that the jocularity evident on the other side shows you that not even they treat this matter seriously and, quite frankly, nor should they. This is a suspension so that the House can note a couple of propositions which we do not accept, calling on the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) to table certain documents. We will reject it—it is a joke.15:47:001297Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—We do treat this seriously; it is the government that is not treating it seriously. What we had tabled in the House today, after two weeks of our probing, was a nine-page letter from Senator Parer. I believe that, before long, this will go down as one of the longest resignation letters without the words `I resign' on it that will come.The question that this suspension of standing orders seeks to ascertain is: if, after our probing, and if, after our questioning in the parliament and through the media last week, we have been able to force Senator Parer to come forward with a nine-page letter on just coal, why didn't Max Moore-Wilton? Why didn't the person who was given carriage of the task by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) report to the Prime Minister on the details that are in question? We know the history of this. Max Moore-Wilton was tasked with this issue after the John Moore fiasco.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Again, we are on the suspension of standing orders, I remind the honourable member.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—This is the Max Moore-Wilton context, Mr Speaker. He was asked then to look through every minister's register of interests. We want to know—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You are on a suspension of standing orders, I remind you.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I am appreciative of it, Mr Speaker. This is specifically saying that we want the advice from Max Moore-Wilton. What we are trying to establish is: what did he ask back in 1996? I hope you listen to me on this point, Mr Speaker, because I do not want to get interrupted on it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest the honourable gentleman addresses the motion before the chair.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—No, I am addressing the motion. The reason we are seeking the tabling of the Max Moore-Wilton advice is that the Prime Minister tasked him not once but three times to go through every minister: first of all, in October 1996; then again in May 1997, from the Prime Minister's own mouth here in the parliament last week; and again in October 1997 following Senator Parer's letter to the Prime Minister on the CSR shares—three instances in which Max Moore-Wilton was asked by the Prime Minister—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is not the substantive question.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It is the substantive motion, Mr Speaker. It is why we are seeking suspension of the standing orders to table these damn documents.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The motion before the chair is that the standing and sessional orders be suspended. The convention in the House is that a member should at least speak to the reasons why there should be a suspension. That is a separate matter.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the Leader of the House has made his point. The minister can resume his seat. I would ask the honourable member to address the question before the chair, which is specifically the suspension of standing orders.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Yes it is—suspension of standing orders to table the advice from Max Moore-Wilton pertinent to this matter, because it is what we have not been told that matters in this exercise. There is nothing in the documentation tabled today that mentions Pan Australian, which we have asked about in this parliament. We want to know whether Max Moore-Wilton asked the questions about Pan Australian, which are the questions that we asked. Did the man tasked by the Prime Minister ask those questions?We have also established—and this is why we want this suspension to get the tabling of the documents—that it is not now just the minister for coal owing shares in a coalmine; it is the minister for gold owing shares in a goldmine, the minister for diamonds owning shares in a diamond mine. It is like a remake of that great John Denver song, with a bit of adaption: some days are diamonds, some days are coal. This is the minister who has nothing left in his responsibilities that he has not conflicted with.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Again, the member for Hotham is way, way off this motion.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—No, the honourable member for Hotham is currently on the question.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The minister has hidden this material from the public and the parliament. Did he hide it from Max Moore-Wilton? That is the question that we want answered in this place. What did he hide from Max Moore-Wilton? If Senator Parer goes, so too does the Prime Minister's permanent head of department because he is the person who thrice has cleared Senator Parer. We have continued to demonstrate the continuing conflict of interest—a conflict of interest not just in terms of his coal dealings but in every other resource with the exception, as the Leader of the Opposition points out, of oil. (Time expired) Question put: That the motion (Mr Beazley's ) be agreed to.15:57:00The House divided. 0Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beazley, K. C.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L.*Griffin, A. P. Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.*Sercombe, R. C. G.*Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Willis, R. Wilton, G. S.0Anderson, J. D. 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. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.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. Hicks, N. J.*Hockey, J. B. Jeanes, S. B.Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. Kelly, D. M.Kelly, J. M. Kemp, D. A.Lieberman, L. S. Lindsay, P. J.Lloyd, J. E.McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. 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. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, A. C.Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Sullivan, K. J. Taylor, W. L.Thomson, A. P. Truss, W. E.Tuckey, C. W. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M.McMullan, R. F. Downer, A. J. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Personal Explanations129916:05:001299Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes, most grievously, by the Minister for Finance (Mr Fahey) in the course of an answer that he gave in question time.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—The Minister for Finance—deprived of any words on my part in relation to the privatisation of Telstra which might in any way suggest for one second that I support it—spoke of my body language. He interpreted my body language as indicating that I favoured the privatisation of Telstra. I do not favour the privatisation of Telstra. I have never favoured the privatisation of Telstra. I have fought a considerable battle to strengthen and increase the size of Telstra staying very firmly in public hands—and that is exactly where it should stay.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think the Leader of the Opposition is debating his point.WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is not a misrepresentation to say that somebody's body language indicates a particular point of view. Therefore, this is not a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat.16:06:001299Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I have indeed, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—In this morning's Sydney Morning Herald , a report with respect to a meeting of western Sydney ALP members that I attended quoted me as stating that living in western Sydney did not qualify them as experts on siting airports. I made no such statement.16:06:001300McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—Today the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) said that the government's long-term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport had been endorsed by the Sydney Airport Community Forum. I am a member of that forum, and the minister's statement is wrong. I certainly do not, and other members of the forum do not, endorse the long-term operating plan.Questions to the Speaker130013001300Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, my question is to you. I refer to an interview that you had with Kerry O'Brien on the 7.30 Report of 4 March 1998. During that interview you stated:I still stand by, very much, the fact that it is not correct to slur anybody, no matter who they are in the community, in that form. It is far better, if you wish to do it by substantive motion . . . Against that explanation of why you ruled out the member for Prospect on her question, I ask: why did you rule her out, without any point of order being taken, because you thought she was alluding to a slur when you did not do the same to the member for Swan when he was alluding to—WI4REITHMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that questions to the Speaker should not entitle a member, under the guise of a question, to debate a previous ruling. This is a habit which has developed in the last two years and I believe—and it is my submission to you—it is inappropriate, it is outside of the conventions and practices of the House and, on that basis, the person asking the question should be required to desist.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the Leader of the House, but I would draw his attention to the fact that in this instance, while he is referring to an interview outside the House, he is in fact asking why the rules under standing order 144 apply as they do. Has the honourable member for Hotham finished his question?DT4Mr CREAN—No, because I understand your defence will be the 144—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I beg your pardon, I am not giving a defence, thank you very much. Have you finished your question?DT4Mr CREAN—You have just hinted at it, Mr Speaker. My question is why didn't you rule—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will not imply that I am giving a defence to anything. I will interpret your question.DT4Mr CREAN—I am asking you the question. Why did you not rule the member for Swan out of order, particularly when the House has now heard that this issue was drawn to your attention by at least three people on this side of the occasion? I would be interested to know the answer to that.1300Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The honourable member will resume his seat. I draw the honourable member's attention to standing order 144 and the rules that apply to questions without notice. There is no similar rule other than those that I identified after the indulgences this morning.Mr Crean interjecting—10000Mr SPEAKER—The honourable member will remain silent! Standing orders 75 to 79 refer to offensive words and, if the honourable member cares to examine the contrast between words used in questions without notice and words in any other proceedings before the House, he will realise the difference.DT4CREANMr Crean—Why did you allow it to happen?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Why didn't you raise it?DT4CREANMr Crean—It was raised. You heard it today.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It was not.130110001CLERK ASSISTANTThe Clerk Assistant—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:1301914ET4 FT4Bevis Arch MP; Bradford John MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes of policy on nursing homes—particularly the attempt to impose user charges on those needing nursing home care—whether these changes be in the form of upfront fees, periodic payment or extra daily fees.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all Australians on the basis of medical need alone.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 810 citizens)Mr BradfordFT4Mr Bradford(from 104 citizens)13011500FT4Bradford John MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We oppose a Nursing Home Care Policy which places economics before people.We urge you to ensure that Nursing Home Care is equally available to all Australians on the basis of medical need, not ability to pay.We urge you to reverse the $500 million funding cuts to Aged Care to provide adequate nursing home facilities for all Australians.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BradfordFT4Mr Bradford(from 1,500 citizens)1301498ET4 YU5Bevis Arch MP; Tanner Lindsay MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the undersigned pensioners and citizens of Australia hereby call upon the Australian Government to cancel the current charges for entry into a nursing home by frail aged peoples of Australia. We point out that over many years the Private Nursing Home Industry has distributed large profits to shareholders, neglecting the need to upgrade buildings and facilities. We further call upon the Government to publish the profits of the Private Nursing Home Industry, before tax, over the past five years.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to direct the Government to provide a system that ensures the frail aged Australians be free from the stress and strains of the huge environmental changes of lifestyle in entering a nursing home and the uncertainty of a better quality of life in their twilight years.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 404 citizens)Mr TannerYU5Mr Tanner(from 94 citizens)1301630ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the undersigned pensioners and citizens of Australia hereby call upon the Australian Government to cancel the current charges for entry into a nursing home by frail aged peoples of Australia and that a more equitable fee structure to be formulated. We point out that over many years the Private Nursing Home Industry has distributed large profits to shareholders, neglecting the need to upgrade buildings and facilities. We further call upon the Government to publish the profits of the Private Nursing Home Industry, before tax, over the past five years.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to direct the Government to provide a system that ensures the frail aged Australians be free from the stress and strains of the huge environmental changes of lifestyle in entering a nursing home and the uncertainty of a better quality of life in their twilight years.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 630 citizens)130140VU5 MK6Griffin Alan MP; Mossfield Frank MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain residents of Australia notes with concern the impact of the policy of charging entry fees—often necessitating the sale of the family home—for people needing nursing home care. Furthermore, the petitioners note with concern the impact of the policy of charging residents of aged care facilities an extra daily fee which provides no additional benefit to the resident and is nothing more than a disguised Government tax.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that nursing home care is equally available to all who need it and further that the family home is exempted from any asset test relating to payment for such care.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr GriffinVU5Mr Griffin(from 22 citizens)Mr MossfieldMK6Mr Mossfield(from 18 citizens)130254BV5Adams Dick MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain members of the Australian community affirms our commitment to a culturally diverse Australian society which is unified by a common desire to see all Australians, regardless of their race, ethnicity, religion, sex, age or ability treated with respect and dignity.We recognise the contribution that all Australians have made to the cultural, social and economic development of Australia, and reject the views expressed by Pauline Hanson as divisive and not based in fact.In recognition of the need to debate these issues honestly and publicly, we request the House to call upon the Federal Government to mount a high profile anti-racism campaign (for which funds were provided in the 1996-97 budget) and fulfil its obligations to build and maintain a harmonious and united Australia.Mr AdamsBV5Mr Adams(from 54 citizens)13027BV5Adams Dick MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House the fact that members of the Royal Australian Navy who served in Malaya between 1955 and 1960 are still the only Australians, sent overseas on active service, whose service has not been recognised in three important areas:1. R.A.N. casualties are not yet included on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial alongside Army and R.A.A.F. casualties;2. R.A.N. service has not yet been recognised with the visible signs of service to Australia; the Returned from Active Service Badge and the Naval campaign medal; and3. R.A.N. service is still not acknowledged as eligible service for the Australian Service Pension, while service by Commonwealth and allied veterans from 55 other countries is.Members of the Army and R.A.A.F. who served during the same period in Malaya had their service fully recognised 24 hours after arriving in Malaya. In the 1997 Budget the Government partly recognised that R.A.N. service was `operational' and accepted responsibility for disabilities resulting from that service. Those affected appreciate the belated, partial recognition. However, government departments are still resorting to old, and inventing new excuses, to deny the above 3 points.Your petitioners therefore request that the House acts to help remove the injustice of 40 years and fully recognise R.A.N. service by providing the same recognition and benefits for that service. The cost will be minuscule, being mainly a transfer of pensions from `age' as paid by the Department of Social Security, to `service' pensions, paid by the Department of Veterans' Affairs.Mr AdamsBV5Mr Adams(from seven citizens)13021045ET4Bevis Arch MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain residents of the State of Queensland notes with concern the impact of the Federal Government's continual changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—particularly the financial impact these changes place upon those people who require prescription medicines.Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives act to ensure that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme does not discriminate against those with the greatest incapacity to pay for prescription medicines.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 1,045 citizens)1302360ET4Bevis Arch MPA Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.This petition of certain residents in the State of Queensland draws to the attention of the House the Howard Government's unfair and hurtful changes affecting the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and purchase of pharmaceutical products. These changes include:. increasing the co-payment for PBS Health Card holders from $2.70 to $3.20;. increasing the PBS co-payment for Australian families from $17.40 to $20.00;. the introduction of a new `drugs tax' through the Therapeutic Group Premium plan, which will force up to 2,000,000 Australians to pay more for the latest, safest and most effective medication in key areas—such as treatment for high blood pressure, high cholesterol, ulcers and depression; . the removal in recent years of many drugs and medications altogether from the PBS list.Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Howard Government to reverse their changes to pharmaceuticals and the PBS, which will particularly hurt low income, elderly and sick members of our community.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 360 citizens)130342ET4Bevis Arch MPA Petition to the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Commonwealth Parliament of Australia.This petition of certain residents in the State of Queensland calls to the attention of the house the Howard Government's proposed changes to nursing homes and aged care, which includes charging an entry fee or bond for entry into nursing homes. The Government's proposals are unfair and will discriminate against the most vulnerable, frail and sick members of our community.We request the House to call on the Howard Government to abandon their plans and to immediately restore full funding for capital assistance to nursing homes.Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis(from 42 citizens)13032007T4Crosio Janice MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the widespread opposition which exists in western Sydney over the planned development of a 24 hour international airport at Badgerys Creek; the damage to people's health and quality of life that will accompany such a development, and the Federal Government's failure to seriously re-examine other alternative and more suitable sites for an airport outside the Sydney basin.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House requests the Federal Government to discontinue its plans to build Sydney's second airport at Badgerys Creek and that it immediately begins a serious re-examination of the suitable airport sites outside the Sydney basin.Mrs Crosio7T4Mrs Crosio(from 200 citizens)13031976XS4Lawrence Carmen MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of the State of Western Australia draws to the attention of the House our opposition to the use of armed troops in Iraq. This decision risks not only the lives of millions of innocent civilians in Iraq, but also billions of dollars worth of economic benefits which this country enjoys with the Middle Eastern nations.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House appeals to the Prime Minister to withdraw our troops from the Gulf area and to condemn the hasty decision made by the Federal Government to commit SAS troops to wage a war which has no clear objectives, and a war which will risk the lives of innocent civilians in Iraq and disrupt world trade. Furthermore we call upon the Australian Government to continue to pursue a diplomatic settlement and to ensure a peaceful and just outcome.Dr LawrenceXS4Dr Lawrence(from 1,976 citizens)1303218I4Martin Stephen MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens draws the attention of the House to the damaging impact of the Government's changes to post-secondary education. Upfront undergraduate fees; increased HECS fees and charges; cuts to student places; cuts to Austudy and Abstudy and decreased Commonwealth funding for universities are denying students fair access to university education. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to return post-secondary education to a system which is fair and accessible for Australians.Mr Martin8I4Mr Martin(from 21 citizens)1303138BI4Miles Chris MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:that we consider illicit drugs to be one of the biggest social problems confronting young people and families;that many families are suffering extreme hurt and pain because of the drug trade;that many young people are not reaching their full potential due to drug addiction;we commend the Federal Government for its $87.5 million National Illicit Drug Strategy;Your petitioners therefore request the House to:continue to do everything possible to combat illicit drug use and trafficking in Australia.Mr MilesBI4Mr Miles(from 138 citizens)13031195EI4Moore John MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:No Nuclear Reactor in Sutherland ShireI strongly oppose construction of a nuclear reactor in Sydney. Nuclear activity generates radioactive emissions and radioactive waste for which Australia has no repository. A nuclear accident has implications for all of Sydney. Such facilities should not be located in Australia's largest city.Your petitioners pray that the House will join them in opposing increased nuclear activity in Sydney.Mr MooreEI4Mr Moore(from 1,195 citizens)13042276HI4Morris Peter MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at the Howard Government's decision to close Belmont Medicare Office. The closure of Belmont Medicare Office will cause serious difficulty and hardship to the residents of the East Lake Macquarie area, especially to lower-income and less-able residents.Residents will no longer be able to get immediate cash refunds of doctors fees to enable them to purchase required pharmaceuticals from nearby pharmacies and will thereby be unfairly disadvantaged.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House call on the Howard Government to reverse its decision to close Belmont Medicare Office and to cease its dismantling of Medicare Services.Mr Peter MorrisHI4Mr Peter Morris(from 2,276 citizens)130429AE4Nehl Garry MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of the Cowper Electorate draws the attention of the House that it is due to consider certain amendments to the Child Support Act. These amendments represent a very small percentage of reforms recommended by the Joint Senate Committee on certain family matters.We ask the House to reject the proposal to levy $5.00 per week Child Support on people receiving Department of Social Security benefits as they are already in severe financial hardship and living below the poverty line with no capacity to support anyone other than themselves.We further ask the House to increase the exempt amount of income before assessment from the rate of Newstart Allowance + 10 per cent to Newstart Allowance + 30 per cent.We also ask the paying parents be assessed on their income after tax, as presently they are being forced to contribute a percentage of their tax as child support. This is money that they themselves have no access to. Finally, we urge the House to ensure that there is true equity in the Child Support Act, so that the Act can be applied equally and fairly to all parties.Mr NehlAE4Mr Nehl(from 29 citizens)130469VT4Reid Bruce MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia assembled.The humble petition of certain citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia sheweth concern over the Australian Government's decision to provide military support to the United States of America for an attack on the people of Iraq.We submit that such military action will increase the death and misery of the already suffering civilians of Iraq. Military action will also threaten the regional and world environment.It is noted that most other nations in the region, and the majority of nations within the United Nations do not favour military action against the Iraqi regime at this time.Your petitioners therefore pray that negotiations should continue and that Australia should not be part of a military attack on Iraqi civilians. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.Mr ReidVT4Mr Reid(from 69 citizens)1304202YT4Scott Bruce MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain electors of the Division of Maranoa draws to the attention of the House that the Veteran's Entitlement Act of 1986 discriminates against some ex War Widows as illustrated.(a) A War Widow who remarries before May 1984 loses her entitlement to a War Widows Pension.(b) A War Widow who remarries after May 1984 retains her entitlement to a War Widow's Pension.Your petitioners therefore request that the House amend the Veteran's Entitlement Act of 1986 to remove the discrimination and restore entitlement to those War Widows affected.Mr Bruce ScottYT4Mr Bruce Scott(from 202 citizens)130421TK6Southcott Andrew MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia, draws to the attention of the House that we the citizens of Australia want the Federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to be aware of our desire for an Australian citizen to be the Head of State of Australia. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will support the will of the petitioners by relevant debate in the House to assist in achieving this outcome.Dr SouthcottTK6Dr Southcott(from 21 citizens)1305540YU5Tanner Lindsay MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of the people of Australia shows:Our opposition to the use of Genetic Engineering of any form of life, on environment, moral and social grounds. Further, we wish to show our opposition to any form of patenting of life.We request that the parliament introduce laws to end the genetic engineering industry and research into genetic engineering. We also request that the parliament repeal all legislation enabling the patenting of life forms and withdraw from any international conventions committing Australia to implementing patenting laws.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, do pray.Mr TannerYU5Mr Tanner(from 540 citizens)130532YU5Tanner Lindsay MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We citizens of Australia and Custodians of the Earth draw to the attention of the House, our concern at the continued use of genetic engineering and cloning of human beings, animals, plant life, microbes and foods. Along with the unknown consequences to the earth's natural life forms and environment, in order for individuals and multinational companies to patent and own the food resources of the world.We request you to pass laws prohibiting the continued use of genetic engineering and cloning of human beings, animals, plant life, microbes and foods. We want you to protect humanity from the patenting and owning by individuals and large corporate bodies of unnatural life forms.Mr TannerYU5Mr Tanner(from 32 citizens)1305151SU5Vaile Mark MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives Assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Lyne draws to the attention of the House the strong case for funding to expand SBS Television services to the Lower Mid-North Coast through a transmitted on the National Transmission Agency site at Middle Brother Mountain, north of Taree.We the undersigned ask the House to draw this matter to the attention of the Minister for Com munications so that he may pursue the matter as a high priority as part of the Federal Government's expansion program of SBS Television services across Australia.Mr VaileSU5Mr Vaile(from 151 citizens)1305302ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The residents of the State of New South Wales draw to the attention of the House:(1) That we the undersigned are affected by the long term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and associated airspace.The process by which planning decisions have been made was unjust.The redistribution of aircraft noise as a consequence of the plan is unfair and will continue to be unfair.Therefore, your petitioners request the House to:establish a commission of inquiry or a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of the plan including the part played (if any) by any of the senior members of the coalition government.(2) We support the action of the Mayor and Council of Concord in demanding that the new flight paths over the Municipality of Concord should cease immediately and the government honours its pre-election promise limiting the implementation of new flight paths.(3) Citizens of Concord demand that the federal government addresses its responsibility to provide for proper air services with minimal impact on residential areas.Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 302 citizens)1305120ZK6Zammit Paul MPTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The residents of the State of New South Wales draw to the attention of the House:That we the undersigned are affected by the long term operating plan for Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport and associated airspace.The process by which planning decisions have been made was unjust.The redistribution of aircraft noise as a consequence of the plan is unfair and will continue to be unfair.Therefore your petitioners request the House to:Establish a commission of inquiry or a judicial inquiry to investigate all aspects of the plan including the part played by senior members of the coalition government. Mr ZammitZK6Mr Zammit(from 120 citizens)Petitions received.Private Members' Business1306130616:15:001306McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—I move:That this House:(1) notes that there exists significant scientific controversy as to the effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile phone towers;(2) resolves that current legislation should be amended to require that mobile phone towers not be installed within a radius of 300 metres from schools and playgrounds;(3) resolves that the telecommunications industry be levied to raise funds to conduct research into the health and safety aspects of electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile telephone towers; and(4) calls for a review of Australian standard AS2772 which relates to electromagnetic radiation emissions.This motion is seconded by the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Wilton).XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—Are you sure?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—I am sure. This issue concerns a number of members on both sides of the House and concerns the construction of mobile telephone towers in the vicinity of schools. I give credit for the source of the wording of the motion to an organisation in my electorate called SPINS, which is the acronym for Stop Phone Installations Near Schools. They are very concerned about a proposal by Vodafone to construct a mobile telephone tower immediately across the road from Blakehurst Primary School. I will go into those circumstances in the course of my speech.Currently there are about 4½ million mobile phones in Australia and about 2,000 towers, which all give off electromagnetic radiation. There has been a considerable debate, over the past couple of years in particular, as to the effect of this electromagnetic energy. The issue was first raised in a Four Corners program in July 1995, but even as early as 1994 the CSIRO had issued a report saying that there were some issues that needed further investigation and flagged it as a potential concern.The cautions were raised in a professional sense in December 1996 by Dr Bruce Hocking, who is a former Telstra medical director. He published a paper in the Journal of Australian Medicine in December 1996 and established that there was a potential link between children under 15 years of age suffering from leukaemia and their proximity to a mobile telephone tower in St Leonards at North Sydney—that is, the incidence of leukaemia among children of that age group in that area compared with the rest of Sydney was certainly higher. That study has since been found to correlate with another study in Honolulu in Hawaii, where there has also been a higher incidence of leukaemia among children near television towers.That raises the issue of mobile phone towers. Certainly, the fact is that the radiation emitted from mobile phone towers is not nearly as high as that emitted from TV towers. Nonetheless, there are issues that need addressing. The mere fact that there is a concern justifies my motion and putting a moratorium on any further construction of mobile telephone towers in the vicinity of schools.The debate that is occurring now centres largely on the fact that the industry relies on the Australian Standard. The Australian Standard is one of preventing human exposure to radiation of such a level that it generates a thermal effect. The radiation is so intense—as I understand it, in my ignorance—that it actually increases the oscillations of cells, which generates heat and causes damage to the cells themselves. But evidence is emerging that electromagnetic radiation which is less than that intensity is also harmful.A report in the Australian on 6 May last year told of a study undertaken at the request of Telstra. It was a completely objective test run by very qualified scientists. The test involved mice and occurred in 1984 and 1985. It showed that there was a twofold increase in the likelihood of these mice developing B-cell lymphoma. It is concerning that, while the lymphoma was evident in the early part of the experiment, the incidence continued to rise over 18 months, which tends to suggest that the effects are cumulative and time related. That is a real concern. Telstra had clauses of confidentiality in respect of those test results. I am not suggesting anything sinister, but the fact is that the results have now come out.There are a number in the industry who are adopting the tobacco industry's defence—that is, they are constantly repeating that `men or women are not rodents'. On the other hand, scientists are saying that DNA is DNA, and humans and animals alike have DNA. The study also indicated that there were some among the population of mice who were more susceptible than others.The article in the Australian says that this susceptibility is something that clearly needs further identification and it is not good enough for the industry to simply rely on Australian Standard 2772 to say that this radiation from mobile phone towers is not in the thermal category and therefore not a risk. The fact of the matter is that the study undertaken on mice indicated that something less than thermal radiation certainly is implicated as a potential cause of these cancers.When you are looking at school kids, you have to be concerned: these mice were exposed for about two hours a day; for school kids, we are talking about 6½ hours a day, five days a week. Blakehurst Primary is on a hill directly across the road from a tower. Effectively, it is 100 metres across from where the radiation source will be.I do not wish to be a scaremongerer or to dissuade parents at Blakehurst Primary from keeping their children at the school. That is not my purpose at all. My purpose is to flag the extent of scientific debate. Certainly, it is only a debate at this stage. I readily concede that if anyone commenced a court case they would not establish, as a matter of probability, a causal connection between exposure to electromagnetic radiation and the development of illnesses such as childhood leukaemia.However, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that, as a hypothesis, it needs and requires testing. The government itself has admitted that fact. It has allocated $4 million for further testing and research to be undertaken.I will not read out the contents of an ad which has been recently published by the National Health and Medical Research Council, but it clearly calls for research on these very issues, that is, the biological effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation. It is not merely scaremongering. Yes, there have been some academics who have been more emotional and perhaps more sensational in espousing a causal connection, but even the March 1998 bulletin of the Australian Communications Authority, the industry watchdog, acknowledges the uncertain scientific knowledge, stating:However, the ACA also recognises that this is an emerging area of science and is consequently structuring its regulatory framework so that as new scientific knowledge becomes available new developments can be incorporated.My whole point is this: you do not get a second chance. If a child is exposed now and in 20 years time the child develops a form of tumour or some other illness, you cannot rewind the clock.The tragedy for parents whose kids go to Blakehurst Primary School is that they may well in the future be included as part of the scientific data studies, and that is just not good enough. There is a risk, and no-one can say there is not a risk. If there is a risk and that risk is being reviewed and studied, in the meantime you do not expose children to that risk. Parents are entitled to assume that when their children go to school they are going to an environment which is risk free. All the industry is being required to do is to have a moratorium on building mobile telephone towers within 300 metres of a school while this research is being undertaken. I have corresponded with Vodafone on a number of occasions now. I hope they show good faith, because if they do not this debate is going to become increasingly public and I know that parents will be making a choice as to where they buy their phones. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?YK6WILTONMr Wilton—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:25:001308Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I suppose it would be fair to say that there is still a great deal of conjecture in the community as to the effects of electromagnetic radiation in all its forms. My colleague the member for Barton (Mr McClelland), in presenting this motion to the House and in drawing our attention to mobile phone towers, touches on an area of concern to all Australians. Without in any way wishing to diminish the focus of his concern, I wonder if we have not ranged sufficiently widely in addressing this matter of electromagnetic radiation in its various forms even within the telecommunications disciplines, for example, mobile handsets themselves. I say that because telecommunications and new technologies are expanding at an ever-increasing pace. While I commend my colleague for giving a primary focus to children and their immediate environment, I ask what the situation is for those same children who are exposed, either at school or at home, to some form of electromagnetic radiation hitherto thought to be benign. I would therefore appeal, in the broad, that the allied matters of electromagnetic radiation in communications technology be comprehensively addressed.Looking at the motion itself, we all know that levels of electromagnetic radiation are higher at their source and diminish with distance. In talking about household appliances, radiation is hardly detectable at about 1½ metres. We have in our own homes appliances that come into close or intimate contact with us: hair dryers and electric blankets, for example. As one paper put it quite succinctly, `It is also unclear whether brief, high-level fields of appliances have more impact than low level fields of power lines, wiring and other sources.'Electromagnetic waves pass through many objects, including trees, the walls of our homes and other buildings. These waves pass through our bodies, but it is difficult to measure the types and intensities of electromagnetic radiation fields that we come in contact with because we all live in different circumstances and are exposed to diverse and varying types of radiation. But, again broadly speaking, what is known is that when they generate heat at high levels of frequency then it is time for concern. There are within the electromagnetic radiation spectrum frequencies which are known to affect genetic materials. As honourable members will be aware, frequencies are measured in hertz, or cycles per second. As we have come to know them in their most frequently used forms, these measures of strength are kilohertz, 103; megahertz, 106; and gigahertz, 109. The greater the frequency, the shorter the wavelength and the greater the energy transmitted. At 1016 hertz the waves become ionising, or capable of affecting the atomic structure of matter—cells, for example, are vulnerable. Ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays are at a greater frequency than 1016 and can cause cancer through damage to genetic material. We should look back in horror when we consider that, when buying shoes during the 1950s, one could look at how well those shoes fitted through a self-operated X-ray machine.However, in considering the spectrum in which mobile telephone towers sit, we are looking at the non-ionising types of radiation referred to as RF or radio frequency microwave radiation in the 100 kilohertz to 300 gigahertz range. This range encompasses AM radio, FM radio, VHF and UHF TV, mobile phones, radar and microwave ovens. Australian Standard 2772.1, to which the honourable member refers in his resolution, covers this range.Experimentation in this field generally has been confined to laboratory animals, so it is difficult to draw conclusions which necessarily apply to children or adults. In other words, do such experiments provide an adequate model? Research conducted by the Centenary Institution of Cancer Medicine and Cell Biology gives rise to some concern. Over an 18-month period it subjected 200 mice predisposed to lymphomas to intense pulse radiation similar to that emanating from digital microwave sources. These were the same sorts of pulses that would have been generated by, say, European cellular telephones.There were two times as many lymphomas in the mice subjected to the microwaves than in those that were not. The study was fi nanced by Telstra. As Michael Day said in his summation of this research in New Scientist:Just how microwaves could promote cancer is unclear.But what is clear is the need for more focused research both at the handset and transmission tower areas of science. When we consider the RF radiation from TV towers and mobile phone towers, the member for Barton's concerns—and no doubt the concerns of all of us—take a sharper focus. TV towers have a much higher power rating and give out more intense radiation. Fortunately, these are located on hills and mountains generally a fair distance from areas of population. North Sydney, however, is an exception to this rule.At 100 to 150 metres, the radiation from a mobile phone tower is at its peak. As one moves further away the level of intensity drops off rapidly. TV towers transmit at strengths 15,000 times that of mobile phone towers. The Australian standard of 200 microwatts per square centimetre easily encompasses the six microwatts per square metre said to be the maximum value for analog microwave towers and one microwatt for digital towers. In the case of analog, this would represent only three per cent of the allowable power density.In the case of a TV tower, transmission strength at one kilometre is five to 10 microwatts per square centimetre and falls away rapidly over the next kilometre. However, what is disturbing is to find that a paper by Dr Bruce Hocking, quoted in a number of journals, alludes to findings that would indicate leukemia may be linked to the strength of RF radiation from TV towers in urban areas. This study refers to the incidence of leukemia in an area within a four-kilometre radius of a cluster of TV towers. The number of cases in this area compared with a control group at eight to 12 kilometres from the tower was markedly different. In the former group, the incidence of childhood leukemia was 60 per cent higher and mortality 100 per cent higher. In adults, leukemia was 13 per cent higher.European and US epidemiological studies indicate that the incidence of certain cancers is 1.5 to four times higher in individuals exposed to suspected high levels of electromagnetic radiation. In both these cases, the studies are inconclusive and require more definitive research. Nevertheless, the warning signs are there. If, as Dr Hocking observed, levels of eight microwatts per square centimetre were found near TV towers, and if we loosely extrapolate this in a comparison with the six microwatts per square centimetre 150 kilometres from an analog phone tower, then there would appear to be a very strong case for some additional research.We need to realise that we have five million mobile phone users in this country. By head of population, we are the greatest users outside Scandinavia and well ahead of the US, UK and Canada. It is natural then, given our demography and geography, that we will need to continue to be users of cellular and microwave technology. What follows then—and it is very much in our own interest—is that there be greater and more research into this field of endeavour. To that extent, the member for Barton's motion is timely. With those covenants that I put in my presentation today, I broadly support his thrust.16:35:001309Wilton, Greg, MPMr WILTONYK6IsaacsALP00—I commend the motion moved by the member for Barton (Mr McClelland). As he has put quite succinctly, there is evidence—and it is now known as fact—that electromagnetic radiation does indeed emanate from mobile phone towers. Of course, there has been a great deal of research to support the fact that this is the case. But no-one has convinced me nor the member for Barton that there is no health threat caused by the low levels of electromagnetic radiation that does emanate from these mobile phone towers.There is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation into the possibility of further health risks outlined by my colleague. One of the more cited journal articles on this matter is a 1993 paper by Dr Ivan Beale from the University of Auckland titled `Biological effects of weak radio frequency radiation'. In that article Dr Beale states:Our current safety standards are based only on research showing adverse effects of body tissue heating in animals exposed for brief periods to relatively high radiation levels. He goes on to say that there are no research studies of the long-term animal or human exposures to the more complex type of radiation emitted from mobile phone towers. Therefore, he questions the legitimacy of the existing standards of exposure. Whilst exposure of the general public to radiation levels of more than a few microwatts per square centimetre is rare, Dr Beale says that even that amount is millions of times higher than the radio frequency levels arising from natural sources. He also says:Given their circumstances and considering also the lack of relevant research studies and the limited applicability of current exposure standards, a responsible course of action is to minimise unnecessary exposure . . . prudent avoidance—as he puts it—is now being widely applied for addressing the uncertainties regarding health risks from non-ionising radiation. Its application is particularly appropriate in situations involving exposure of more vulnerable sections of the public, such as children, who may be particularly prone to effects of exposure and may have limited ability to protect themselves.The operation of. . . (mobile phone towers) on or near kindergartens or school properties is likely to result in large increases in radio frequency exposure for groups of children. This is contrary to the principle of prudent avoidance and inconsistent with good health protection policy.This area of research is developing rapidly. While we need more quality independent research undertaken into the nature of electromagnetic energy being emitted from mobile phone towers, we can say the Beale statements result from an assessment of hundreds of papers produced on the effects of this form of electromagnetic radiation.The industry has told its critics that they should find evidence that phone towers may damage people's health. I think the onus should be on the multi-million dollar industry to prove to the public that there is indeed no health risk. We, the general public, have a right to be protected from the potential health risks caused by mobile phone towers. Like previous speakers, I am particularly concerned about the location of such towers near both kindergartens and schools.Both the member for Hinkler (Mr Neville) and the member for Barton referred to an article by Bruce Hocking, a former Telstra medical director, in the Medical Journal of Australia linking leukemia incidence with the proximity of TV towers. This study should lead us to do what New Zealand has done: avoid locating TV towers next to schools and kindergartens. What the member for Hinkler did not say in citing as he did the increased incidence of leukemia around these mobile phone towers is that in late 1996 the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) dismissed the study by saying it probably represented a cancer cluster. I have no doubt that any reasonable reassessment of Dr Hocking's paper would illustrate that this increased incidence of acute leukemia in children was uniformly distributed across the suburbs close to towers.There is no doubt that community concern about this matter is increasing. There is no doubt it is of great concern to parents, especially those in the outer urban areas of southern and eastern Melbourne, including those represented by me and the next speaker, the member for Dunkley (Mr Billson). I am sure that he will join with me in calling for a moratorium on the placement of these mobile phone towers adjacent to both schools and kindergartens, where the threat to young students is unknown. (Time expired)16:40:001310Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—More than 4.5 million Australians, including around 30,000 people in Dunkley, use a mobile phone in their work, leisure or private lives. Thankfully, the coalition replaced the `let her rip' ALP approach to mobile phone towers with a sensible and sensitive regulatory arrangement. Optus, Telstra and Vodafone are now directly accountable through local planning laws for tower deployment.Today's motion is more about the emotions that surround community debate on this subject than the facts of the issues. At least Labor members, who showed such disinterest in this subject when in government, are now acquainting themselves with these issues. However, it should be a debate about science—real science; not counterfeit science that had to be rolled out under the former ALP regime, which gave little credence or weighting to visual and amenity concerns about poorly located and unwelcome mobile phone towers.This motion fails the test of scientific validity. The relevant standard in Australia covering the emission of electromagnetic energy, or radiation, is the interim standard AS 2772.1, refined in 1998. The Australian Communications Authority says that these standards are amongst the most stringent in the world. Radio frequency devices operated in accordance with recognised human exposure safety standards will not pose a health risk.The ACA also recognises that the regulatory framework should allow for more scientific developments and findings to be incorporated. Our national standards are about five times stricter than those applying in the United States. Not only is our standard of 200 microwatts per square centimetre for mobile phone frequencies stricter; it is also about 250 times less intense than the experimental animal threshold for thermally induced behavioural changes from which many of the scientific observations have been derived.The scientific consensus is that digital mobile telephone towers emit a maximum of around one microwatt—much less than the six microwatts for AMPS technology—or one-tenth of one microwatt per square centimetre of electromagnetic energy. In other words, telephone towers normally generate an exposure of electromagnetic energy of about one-2,000th, or 0.05 per cent, of the standard for mobile telephone handsets used in Australia. There can be no disputing that the actual users of mobile phones are subject to higher doses of radiation, particularly if aids like hands-free operation and ear pieces are not used to reduce this exposure. Mobile phone users place themselves at the immediate point that receives and transmits the signal—the handset. The phone towers emit EME in a terrestrial manner. The key defining characteristic about electromagnetic energy is proximity to the transmission and reception device. This motion misses this point.The radiation emitted by a mobile telephone tower peaks—albeit at a minuscule level, as I mentioned earlier—at between 100 and 150 metres but then declines. Given the scientific facts, there is no evidence that suggests a separation distance of 300 metres has any logical basis. In fact, the insistence on an arbitrary separation distance risks causing a carrier to `dig in' in favour of very poor sites rather than move cooperatively to another location where separation distances, amenity and environmental protection and visual screening could all have been greatly improved.Counterfeit science like that being propelled today is impeding better outcomes for communities. I might add there is a world of difference between television transmission towers and mobile phone towers. Everyday household appliances emit another type of radiation—ELF. Household shavers can create up to 15,000 microteslas of magnetic flux density next to the skin. Small stimulation of cancer can occur at the exposure of 400 to 500 microteslas. A hair drier can give rise to 2,000 microteslas. Even though these types of radiation exposures are mostly transient, is the member for Barton proposing that we ban the use of all shavers and hair driers within 300 metres?It can be argued that science has a solid hold on the thermal impact of EME and we already have some of the most stringent standards in place. The picture on non-thermal impacts is less clear, though. That is why the government has provided $4 million to the National Health and Medical Research Council to fund research projects in this area. Given the critical proximity factor I mentioned earlier, the research rightly focuses on mobile telephones—not so much on the towers, as the motion seeks to emphasise.Specifications for this research include that it should lend itself to attempted replication by researchers. We have all read of the Royal Adelaide Hospital research where mice genetically bred to be predisposed to cancer developed cancer at a greater rate than their rodent colleagues after exposure to radiation for 18 months. Difficulty in replicating the findings, conflict with other research conclusions and doubts about the applicability of the work to humans, given differing body mass, tissue density and cell composition, support the government's contention that more work needs to be done.Most mobile phone users are not bred to be cancer prone or sleep with a mobile phone the size of their bed. Let us stick to the facts, let us be true to the science and let us carry out the additional research in the area where it is needed: at the handset. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made on order of the day for the next sitting.131216:45:001312Cameron, Eoin, MPMr EOIN CAMERON6V5StirlingLP10—I move:That the House:(1) acknowledges the contribution of palliative care to the proper treatment of patients with a terminal illness;(2) recognises the work of health professionals and volunteers in the field of palliative care and commends those workers for their commitment to patients, the compassion with which they undertake their work and the commitment they have to palliative care as a proper treatment of patients with a terminal illness;(3) acknowledges the benefits to patients, families and health care providers of palliative care;(4) further recognises the benefits to both patients and families of palliative care provided to patients in their home rather than at medical institutions;(5) urges the Government to continue the provision of funds to palliative care with a view to increasing funding to palliative care provided at home in particular; and(6) implores the Government to investigate the merit of encouraging the provision of palliative care at the patient's home, and the funding for this, in view of the benefits for both the patient and their family as well as the Government.Last year this parliament passed legislation which overrode the Northern Territory's legislation which allowed euthanasia. There was, when the issue was debated both inside and outside parliament, the view that euthanasia was the best treatment for terminal patients. For my part, I am against euthanasia but, whatever one's opinion of euthanasia, one component important in the treatment of people with a terminal illness is palliative care.The motion I am putting to the House today seeks to acknowledge the benefits of palliative care in the treatment of patients with a terminal illness, recognises the excellent work of health professionals and volunteers in the field of palliative care, and urges the government to maintain the present levels of funding as a minimum for the provision of palliative care, as well as funding alternative methods of delivering palliative care. Palliative care is extremely vital in the treatment of a patient with a terminal illness. The World Health Organisation defines palliative care as follows:The total health care of patients whose disease is not responsive to curative treatment. Control of pain, or other symptoms and of psychological, social and spiritual problems is paramount. The goal of palliative care is achievement of the best possible quality of life for patients and for their families.Many aspects of palliative care are also applicable earlier in the course of the illness in conjunction with anti-cancer treatment. Palliative care:affirms life and regards dying as a normal process—something we all get to do—neither hastens nor postpones death;provides relief from pain and other distressing symptoms;integrates the psychological and spiritual aspects of patient care;offers a support system to help patients live as actively as possible until death; andoffers a support system to help the family cope during the patient's illness and in their own bereavement.To define palliative care in a theoretical way does not totally explain the worthiness of it in the treatment of a terminally ill patient. My experience with palliative care is an extremely personal experience. Our eldest daughter, Jane, is a palliative care nurse who, in the final stages of her first pregnancy last year, had the unique experience of helping to nurse her father-in-law and my friend Ned, who died of cancer. He was fortunate to die at home with his family around him and I know that he died comfortably, free of pain, and in fact was happy and had a smile on his face when he left, much of which is attributable to the palliative care that he received. If any death could be described as a good death, Ned certainly had one.In acknowledging the contribution of palliative care to the proper treatment of patients with a terminal illness, I can do no more than reiterate the comfort of Ned during his last days. He was able to spend those moments with his family around him, in the comfort of his own home and with medical treatment which ensured he was free of pain or that that pain was as minimal as possible at all times.Having said my daughter is a palliative care nurse, which I would not like to think constitutes a conflict of interest with my moving this particular motion, I think it is important to acknowledge the work of the health professionals and, just as importantly, the volunteers, in the field of palliative care.It would be a most difficult task to work in a situation where you know that your patient is going to pass away. The work of those in palliative care involves looking after the patient to ensure that they are comfortable, that pain and other distressing symptoms associated with terminal disease are kept under control as much as possible; attending to the needs of the family of the patient in their acceptance of their loved one dying and close to death; and counselling them after their loved one has passed away.Palliative care is also beneficial to the family of patients in that they do not like to see their loved ones suffer. The objective of palliative care is, of course, to prevent suffering. As I have said, I have witnessed first-hand family members during their last days with their loved one and the palliative care he received made it easier for the family to accept the death of their loved one, prior to and after the death.That person I refer to was able to pass away in the family home. I found that it was easier on him; it was certainly easier on his family that he could do this. In fact, research has found that four in every five people with a terminal illness would rather they passed away in their home. Unfortunately, only one in five do. Having said that, I do not want to underestimate the importance of hospices. In Western Australia we have great institutions in the Hollywood Hospital's Palliative Care Unit and the Cottage Hospice, which provide palliative care services.Unfortunately, these hospices are limited in their capacity and we find many patients requiring palliative care are being sent to teaching hospitals and emergency wards of hospitals, which are not particularly equipped to provide palliative care. Unlike in hospitals, for example, patients at a hospice can enjoy a beer if they feel like one, they can be visited by their family pet, and they can have regular barbeques if that is their wish. This is all part of their treatment to ensure they are relaxed and comfortable during the final stages of their lives.In the Sunday Times of 21 December last year it was reported that at the Cottage Hospice in Perth there is always a waiting list for admission to the hospice. At Hollywood Hospital, which has only six publicly funded beds in its palliative care unit, there are at times empty beds due to a lack of funding, not a lack of demand. With an ageing society, and cancer being a large cause of death in our community, palliative care will be an integral part of treatment of patients, probably on an increasing scale.I mentioned previously that, while four in every five terminal patients wish to die in the comfort of their own home, only one in five does so. This provides an opportunity to explore new ways of delivering palliative care so that those requiring admission to a hospice can be admitted, whilst those wishing to be treated at home, so they can spend their last days there, can also do so. In Perth we have a marvellous organisation called Silver Chain, which provides treatment to patients in their homes.I recently met Dr Helen Manion, a palliative care doctor from Sydney, who is head of Home Hospice, which she developed with her husband. Home Hospice is a special way of caring for those patients nearing the end of a terminal illness and wanting to remain in their own homes. The caring is done by their own loved ones and their medical care is provided by their own general practitioner. Home Hospice is comprised predominantly of volunteers from the community and provides the backup to make home caring possible. Home Hospice is a charitable, non-profit organisation. There are no fees or charges for any of the services of Home Hospice. It assists by providing care for the carers. It also requires an appreciation of palliative care by general practitioners. I am happy to report to the House that Dr Helen Manion will be in Parliament House next Monday to meet with interested members, and details of that meeting are available from my office. I am sure that many people would be most interested in what Dr Manion has to say. She is a most impressive person indeed.I note that a recommendation in the stage 1 report of the palliative care program review of 1996 was:It is recommended that the barriers to access to an integrated palliative care service for patients and carers in the home, such as those in relation to general practitioners, pharmaceuticals and equipment be addressed, with a view to identifying the means with which to overcome them.The first paragraph of the government response to this recommendation was:The Commonwealth agrees that any barriers to the provision of fully integrated palliative care services in the home need to be addressed.Another recommendation was that:The educational needs of general practitioners be assessed by the Commonwealth, States and Territories in consultation with palliative care service providers, and that divisions of general practice be encouraged to develop project proposals on palliative care for funding in conjunction with the State and Territory health authorities.By providing general practitioners with experience in palliative care and obtaining their support for palliative care, it will be easier to provide more people with terminal illnesses who want to see their last days in their own home with the opportunity to die at home, with their general practitioner providing palliative care and a volunteer pool assisting the carers at home. If you think it may be difficult to get people to volunteer, I think you would be most surprised at the number of people from the family and the community who would be willing to help. As it has been said many times and as I noted in a video I saw recently by Dr Helen Manion, in Western society we appear to fear death more than in other societies. The experience that I had last year of watching someone die at home with home palliative care was that there is absolutely nothing to fear, and it is something we should all learn about.Such a practice will free up beds in hospices for those who genuinely want to or need to spend their last days in a hospice. This will be financially beneficial to the government and of significant benefit to the patients and their families who often do not want to send their loved ones from the place they have lived and loved to an institution to die. Home Hospice is a great scheme, but it will only succeed and expand through support from the community and the government. For too long palliative care has been something many people have feared. It has been feared because it is associated with dying. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?VK6VALEMrs Vale—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:55:001314Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—I rise to support the motion moved by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron), which covers a wide variety of the issues concerning palliative care in Australia. There is no doubt, and it would be entirely appropriate for it to be the case, that societies like ours will be judged by the way in which we treat the most vulnerable members of our community, and there is no doubt that those who are in the terminal phase of their lives—those suffering from a terminal illness—are indeed very vulnerable members of our community and require the support and assistance of the community.The palliative care networks about which the honourable member spoke are a very important part of the support mechanism which our society can offer. Over the last 25 years in countries like Britain, the United States, Canada and very much in Australia, palliative care has been taken as a very serious and important issue and, increasingly, funds are being channelled to palliative care and members of the medical profession and, indeed, members of the community are being educated about the way in which palliative care can help those in the terminal phase of a terminal illness. I am proud to say that Australia's record in this respect has been a very good one. In the last few years, my own state of South Australia has also been a very strong supporter of palliative care. We have a vibrant association which works closely with the government and the profession to ensure that palliative care issues are given a high profile in Australia.Our high technology medical services give us the opportunity to intervene in what can only be described sometimes as a heroic manner with those who are particularly ill. We must ensure that the medical intervention is not an inappropriate one. During the majority of our lives when we have every chance of recovering from short-term illnesses, high-tech medicine is something to be supported and encouraged. Medical technology allows substantial interventions which enable people to recover from illnesses which only a generation ago would have been terminal. The reality now is that that technology is available and medicine is geared towards that acute care response. But for those who are in the terminal phase of a terminal illness, that heroic response is not at all appropriate. An entirely different kind of care is necessary. That is why it is very important that the palliative care movement has developed in the way that it has and that GP education and specialist services are all available in a palliative care context.It is very important that we acknowledge, as the honourable member for Stirling did in his speech, that death is a fundamental part of life. Eventually we will all face that inevitability, and it is very important that our society puts that in the right context so that those who are in the terminal phase of their illness are able to understand with their families what might best suit their needs and what might be the appropriate response. In some cases, the high technology heroic response, which our acute care oriented medical services are so able to deliver, may not be the appropriate response. Certainly, medicine now gives us the option of relieving pain and distress in almost all circumstances. There used to be an expectation by people that there was every chance that they might die in some form of pain or distress—that that was the norm in the case of those who were dying. The reality now is very different from that. Medical technology is able in almost every case to substantially relieve pain and to ensure that distressing symptoms which might be associated with the illness are able in large part to be relieved.It is very important that people come to understand that and that all members of the medical profession, particularly general practitioners who often have not had that much experience in this area, are made aware of the techniques and technologies which will ensure a pain free and symptom free end to an illness to the extent that that is possible. In the context of a very acute illness, obviously that is not always able to be achieved to 100 per cent effectiveness, but in most cases the degree to which we can relieve pain and distress is very substantial indeed.This will give people the opportunity to take a different approach at that critical time in their palliative care treatment. It will allow them with their family and friends to come to terms with the inevitability of their death. It will allow them in some cases to be reconciled with their friends or members of their family where reconciliation may well be appropriate. This is often a good time for families to set aside past perceived wrongs to ensure that the person who is dying is able to forgive and be forgiven by those for whom that is a necessary part of the dying process. It also allows people to recall the highlights in their lives, to reminisce with their family and friends about the important parts of their lives and to ensure that the memory which is left is a very positive one for their family and friends.If the scenario is to come to pass, it is essential that a number of things are put in place. It is essential that we have the appropriate legal, ethical and moral framework in which these kinds of palliative care treatments can be most effective. It is essential that we have the appropriate education of the professions, be that the medical or the nursing professions, and it is appropriate that further research should be done into palliative care to ensure that the best possible treatments are available.But a very critical part of this model is that funding should be available and the Commonwealth government has a particular responsibility in this regard. Some four or five years ago the Commonwealth initiated a four-year program in palliative care which was able to put in place a number of very important programs in each of the states to support palliative care. Last year that program was extended for one further year, the intention being to ensure that, as part of the current Medicare agreement renegotiation, palliative care funding was an important and integral part of the agreements which should be being signed more or less as we speak.Unfortunately, as we all know from recent headlines, the Medicare funding agreement has not been reached with the states. The premiers walked out of the meeting with the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and those agreements remain very much open. I am concerned in that context that the four-year program extended by one year last year will now not necessarily be addressed in the context of the current disagreement between the states and the Commonwealth. It is vital that that palliative care funding continues to flow from the Commonwealth to ensure that the initial state efforts which were begun a few years ago are able to be continued and that the states have the funding to deliver those palliative care services.The Commonwealth was able by its funding to ensure that palliative care was tackled in a uniform way across the country and that no matter where you lived—whether that was in one of the metropolitan areas or out in the regions—you had some prospect of being able to obtain appropriate palliative care treatment. If the funding from the Commonwealth is set aside, then obviously that will be a matter of concern in the future, and it may be that we return to the days when palliative care was very much just an option depending upon where you lived. That should not be the case, and it is a matter of bipartisan support in this House that the agreements on palliative care should be renewed and that Commonwealth funding should continue in that area.It is also vital that home care is available. Unfortunately, under the HACC agreements the domiciliary care services throughout Australia are very much at a low point in their funding. In my own state of South Australia domiciliary care is now not taking on any new patients, except with respect to some palliative care cases which they are still able to treat. Of course, it is not yet the end of the financial year and already we have reached that point where funding is so constrained. I sincerely hope that this will not impact negatively on their ability to deliver home palliative care, because that is a very vital part of the equation for so many people.If we look at all of those aspects, the most critical is clearly that the funding agreements are brought to fruition in the very near future and that the states continue to address the issues of education of the profession and the legal and ethical framework which surrounds dying in Australia. The reality is that not every state has done that. My own state of South Australia has the Consent to Medical Treatment and Palliative Care Act, which is a vital part of our approach to this and ensures that many of the legal issues surrounding death and dying have been resolved by the parliament.I hope other states in Australia will tackle the issue in a similar way and, in the context of an unified national funding model, we are able to ensure that good palliative care is available in homes, hospitals and hospices right throughout Australia and that we can continue to focus on ensuring that people die with dignity. (Time expired)17:05:001316Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—It was my privilege to second the motion by the member for Stirling (Mr Eoin Cameron) and I congratulate him on raising this important issue before this House. This is an issue each and every one of us must face at some time in our lives, whether it is a member of our own family or, at the very last, facing our own imminent death.Given the choice, surveys reveal that the vast majority of people facing a terminal illness prefer to die at home. Home is where we belong. It is where we are able to maintain a degree of control and retain our dignity. Home is where intimacy is possible in our communication, in our grieving, in our expressions of affection and in our spiritual activities. Home is where the family can stay or come and go and where loneliness is never a problem for the patient.Despite this, throughout most of the Western world, including Australia, fewer than 25 per cent of people die at home. The vast majority die in institutions, hospitals and hospices. Of course, for many it is not an option; they have no carer and perhaps no home. One of the reasons why so many are unable to die at home is that many carers are simply not able to cope without help in these last difficult days. As much as they and the dying loved one would love to have the continuity of care from their own GP in their own home, we have failed as a community to make that possible.Modern medicine, with all its technological advances, has tended to overlook the emotional and spiritual needs of the dying patient. The friendly family GP has had to relinquish his or her special role and, at the crucial time of care, defer to others supposedly more competent and better equipped to assist in the dying process.The loss to patient and carer is obvious but, where this attitude prevails, the most significant loss is suffered by the community. Here in Australia, we have largely become a death fearing, death denying society, wanting as little to do with death as possible. A community that has lost its ability and readiness to care for its dying is impoverished indeed. The World Health Organisation and, indeed, many medical practitioners are calling out for us to relearn as an urgent priority the art of caring for the dying—at least our own loved ones—in the home. In my electorate there is a program which does exactly that. It is known as Home Hospice, and it is the loving initiative of Dr Helen-Anne Manion who lives in Bundeena in my electorate of Hughes. Dr Helen-Anne Manion was also the Sutherland Shire citizen of the year and was a winner of the Hughes Community Service Award for her pioneering work in this important area.Home Hospice, incorporated as a registered charity and receiving no funds whatsoever from government, has been providing a unique palliative care service to our community in the Sutherland Shire of Sydney for the past five years. It is dedicated to enabling a carer to keep a dying loved one at home, in the community, among friends and family, where he or she belongs. The patient's own GP is backed up by all the available palliative care services, community nurses and home help. In addition to all this, what the carer really needs to avoid exhaustion and eventual burnout is relief from those many tasks and chores that must be attended to while at the same time caring for a dying person.There is a need for information and education for those involved if they are not to be intimidated by the unfamiliar task they have taken on. Home Hospice provides all this and has devised a way to marshal and coordinate all the help the carer needs from the generous pool of family, friends and neighbours invariably found willing and eager to be allowed to share in what is truly a labour of love. They are simply waiting to be asked, eager to help yet respectfully not wanting to intrude.The experience of Home Hospice over the last five years is that, on average, 15 to 20 good friends and neighbours make themselves available to help the carer at such a time, so what the patient has is what the patient needs: appropriate, professional attention at home where control, privacy and dignity may be ensured; and the reassuring knowledge that the carer is being relieved of all the arduous work around the house by one's friends, the most welcome of all volunteers. And this is done freely, because it is a labour of love. Even beyond the death of the patient—indeed for another year and beyond—the carer and family are followed so that they are supported during the grieving period.What the motion does not mention specifically, but which is the most obvious and significant benefit, is that Home Hospice becomes a catalyst for uniting the community in service at a time of personal crisis. This is the way it was devised in the old days before we became sophisticated, before we medicalised and institutionalised death and dying, depriving the community of the privilege of assisting in those times. This is the way it was before we lost our rituals and that precious part of our culture that held death as a sacred time for the community.This is what the dying person needs—the encouragement to live until they die. Where is that more likely to happen than in the home, within the intimacy of the family, where fear, anxiety and loneliness are not the problems they are in an institution. Home Hospice, a community generated and sustained program, seeks to involve communities everywhere in this enlightened approach to the care of the dying. I commend the motion to the House.17:10:001318Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—The whole issue of palliative care is one that, unfortunately, receives little attention from the community as a whole, unless it affects a family in particular. Consequently, funding for many services associated with the provision of palliative care is usually left to the vagaries of the various state health departments, and the services offered to those requiring them are never adequate to the patient's and their family's needs.We are all well aware of the present hue and cry over the current impasse between the Commonwealth and the states over proposed future health budgets as the states fight for what they see as an adequate amount to run their crisis driven systems. Yet these same health ministers, in all states, I would venture to say, have never provided sufficient money for the provision of the services in the area of palliative care. This is especially so in my state—Tasmania.It is apparent to anyone who has a loved one in need of palliative care, especially those who wish to spend their final days at home with their loved ones, that there are not enough trained health care providers in the system. There is not enough money to enable the health care workers to travel out into the community and spend the time needed with the patient and his or her family. I, like the other speakers in this debate, wish to add my deep appreciation to the many health professionals and volunteers who operate in the field of palliative care. Their devotion to duty is amazing. Their boundless compassion and commitment beggars adequate description.In Tasmania, we are privileged to have what was once the repatriation hospital, the Whittle Ward, a palliative care set-up that is the envy of the rest of Australia. Those who work in this place have my deepest admiration. I have experienced at first-hand their devotion to duty as they nursed my best mate, Neil James, in his last days of life on this earth.Out in the rural parts of my electorate we have a similar group of health workers, but they are operating under far different conditions. They face real difficulties as they attempt to stretch every last dollar in order for those in need to receive the same services granted to their counterparts in the city. Called upon to travel throughout the Huon and Kingborough municipalities, often in appalling weather conditions and at all hours of the day and night, these members of the palliative care community team, under the direction of Sally Williams, work miracles for the families and friends of those in need. I well remember the magnificent team who spent countless hours caring for the late Ben Jackson so that he could die with dignity in his home in Huonville: Betty Johns, Jane Jupp, Robyn Tollard, Liz, Linda and Patti. Seeing their commitment at first-hand confirmed my long-held belief that these workers are the forgotten operators in our health system.I implore the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) to sit down with his state colleagues to ensure that realistic and adequate funding for this particular health area is settled as a matter of the highest priority. To continue to posture is not good enough. Dying patients and their families deserve far better.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is therefore adjourned and will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate1318Question proposed:That grievances be noted. 131917:14:001319Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Today I seek to highlight the government's gross mishandling of the end of war list for Vietnam, which has caused considerable dismay and anger in the veteran community. It continues a pattern already set by the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel (Mrs Bishop) with the so-called `double medalling' fiasco for Korean War veterans and her attempt to mislead naval veterans of the Malayan Emergency about the contents of a 1996 letter from the UK's First Sea Lord of the Admiralty.The issue has a long and fairly complex history. It arises because of a quota system in place during the war which restricted the number of medals and commendations that could be issued by commanding officers. This quota disadvantaged 78 ADF personnel, 28 of whom were given a lesser award than recommended by their commanding officer and another 50 who missed out completely at the time.The end of war list is designed to correct this situation. It includes 59 veterans who were nominated for acts of gallantry and a further 19 nominated for meritorious service. It is the government's handling of the gallantry cases that is the point of contention and that has been indisputably inept. The complication arises because the veterans concerned were originally recommended for imperial medals, such as the Military Cross for officers or the Military Medal for other ranks. Australia is no longer able to award imperial honours. The replacement Australian system of honours is now fully operative and, under this system, the relevant level 3 medal is the Medal for Gallantry.To everyone except the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel it would appear a relatively straightforward matter to award the veterans concerned the Medal for Gallantry in lieu of the imperial medals they were originally recommended for. It appears that the minister is happy to award the Medal for Gallantry to veterans who were recommended for the Military Cross but not to those who were recommended for the Military Medal. She has argued that the order of precedence requires her to award the latter veterans a commendation rather than the Medal for Gallantry. She clearly finds it difficult to explain why this is so. No-one else in the government or the veteran community seems keen to associate themselves with her position.The opposition has been contacted by a number of experts on military medals who dispute the minister's contentions. They say that there is nothing in the order of precedence that requires the government to downgrade a recommendation for an imperial Military Medal to an Australian commendation. They say the Military Medal is a level 3 award but the commendation is a lesser, level 4 award. The key to the whole saga appears to be that the six or so veterans who were recommended for the Military Medal were not officers. The minister appears unhappy about awarding diggers the same gallantry medals as officers, so she has arbitrarily downgraded gallantry by diggers to a commendation. In so doing she has undermined the very basis of the Australian system of honours, which was critically designed to move away from awards that were linked to rank or to service in a particular stream of the defence forces. She seeks to do something that the British Tory government long ago repudiated and got rid of.Despite her denial on radio 2GB on 18 March, it remains the case that only officers are to get gallantry medals under the end of war list. While some ordinary diggers are to get medals for meritorious service, none are to receive medals for gallantry. This is what the debate is about and her comments, on that occasion, were designed to confuse the issue. During the same interview the minister implied that her critics were seeking to elevate diggers' awards to give them higher recommendation than their commanding officers had recommended. This is totally false. The opposition and prominent veteran leaders like Bruce Ruxton are simply demanding that diggers get a medal, not a commendation, where this is what their commanding officer initially recommended.The case of John Burridge, a Perth veteran and medals expert, highlights the incompetence shown in this matter. It is a bitter irony that he first went to Vietnam in 1968 as a 21-year-old national serviceman who was conscripted there by the coalition. He was recommended for the imperial Military Medal for acts of gallantry on 8 May 1969. The citation by his commanding officer, Lieutenant Colonel Khan, included the following passage:Private Burridge moved forward, on his own initiative, to a position 15 metres from the enemy and commenced engaging the (enemy) bunkers. He maintained his position for over an hour and effectively prevented the enemy from moving to other bunkers on the flanks of the platoon. His actions drew most of the enemy rocket fire onto his position and as a result he was wounded in both legs. Despite his wounds and further enemy engagement of his position, Private Burridge continued to fire on the bunkers and restrict the effectiveness of the enemy fire until the remainder of the platoon could move to new positions. His courage and his complete disregard for his own safety were major factors in preventing further casualties to the platoon and his conduct was an inspiration to all.Because of the quota system, John Burridge did not get the Military Medal he was recommended for. The relevant paperwork confirms that Lieutenant Colonel Khan's superiors, including the commander of Australian forces in Vietnam, Major General Hay, supported his recommendation. Solely because of the quota system, the only recognition that John Burridge received at the time was to be mentioned in dispatches in 1971. Because the imperial Military Medal cannot be awarded to him in 1998, he should get the Medal for Gallantry. He is instead being offered a commendation, which he describes as an insult and which he intends to reject.Clearly the minister is seeking to alter what commanding officers in the field, with more experience and more knowledge than she has, actually recommended. The government seems more interested in the fact that Mr Burridge was a private, and a conscript to boot, than in his bravery. To offer him a commendation on the basis of his rank is to compound the unfairness he suffered 29 years ago because of the quota system.This unfairness has prompted the RSL's Bruce Ruxton to go in to bat for these veterans and to meet with the minister. By all accounts their meeting last week was a robust affair. Afterwards Mr Ruxton was quoted in the Canberra Times on 18 March as saying:We'll keep on punching, we'll keep up the pressure because it's crazy. . . It's not right because they are awarding one thing to officers and another to other ranks. . . (Veterans) are furious; it's just another knock for the Vietnam vets.A letter to the editor in the Age of 5 March from Bruce Sim of Sunbury reinforces these criticisms. He wrote:For 26 years, Vietnam veterans have waited for their comrades to receive their nation's honour for acts of unstinting heroism. Our current Government was elected with a promise to finalise the End of War list. Details of the list have recently been published but once again Vietnam veterans have been slapped in the face and treated with contempt. The End of War list will award gallantry medals to officers, and other ranks will receive commendations . . . This is nonsense and, to the shame of this nation, it continues what is becoming a tradition of kicking in the teeth those who served their country.The minister should have the good grace to reconsider her decision and provide a gallantry medal to those who have more than earned such recognition. Quite clearly this latest situation is one in which she finds very few supporters in the veteran community, very few supporters amongst the people who participated in the war in Vietnam, very few supporters amongst the officers who made the recommendations and very few supporters, quite frankly, in the government of this country.In the brief moments left to me I would like to turn to another matter. I congratulate the alliance of councils in western Sydney for their efforts today in lobbying the government over the question of Badgerys Creek. They are the representatives of 1½ million Australians who are increasingly concerned with the flaws in the EIS. In this flawed EIS we are seeing a situation where those carrying out the purported survey are ensuring that there is minimal public right to participate. The recent announcement that form letters will basically be ignored typifies the attempt to try to enforce—DK6HOCKEYMr Hockey—Hear, hear!8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—`Hear, hear,' the member for North Sydney says. He defends a practice in which this EIS is seeking to minimise public participation, seeking to minimise the rights of constituents in western Sydney to have a say in this process. I congratulate those councils regardless of their political affiliations for the way they have taken up this campaign against an airport which promises western Sydney and 1½ million Australians 70,000 extra vehicle trips a day, increased pollution and the aggravation of learning difficulties. I commend those councils' activities. The government must consider very seriously the Snowy Mountains organisation's analysis and criticism of this EIS.132117:24:001321Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLP10—I would like to comment on the disadvantages experienced by women in the modern Australian work force. Unfortunately, for many women there is a choice: career or family. While choosing to raise a family should never, ever be belittled, women who wish to pursue a career must, as Janet Davison Rowley so poignantly said:Choose to have a career early and a family late or choose . . . to have a family early and a career late.Ms Rowley added that if women choose a family followed by a career then:. . . the careerist woman must plan for a long life.Despite a significant increase in the number of women entering the work force, women's work force participation in full-time employment is still substantially lower than that of men, particularly for married women with children.In February 1997 nearly 57 per cent of men, 44 per cent of women and 26 per cent of married women were employed. Of these, approximately 67 per cent of men, 33 per cent of women and only 19 per cent of married women were in full-time employment. The most significant figures for the same period relate to part-time employment. Only 25 per cent of men were engaged in part-time employment, while 75 per cent of women and 48 per cent of married women held part-time positions. This defies growing work force trends, for example, in the United States, where increasingly men are taking more than one part-time job to compensate for the structural changes in full-time employment.There are, however, significant disadvantages to women in part-time employment. There is usually limited access to training, career development and superannuation, and hanging over all part-time workers is a general feeling of questionable job security. This is so particularly because of the inevitable restructuring in the work force due to technological advances and the impact of social and economic factors. Despite these drawbacks, the Work and Family—Achieving Integration study in 1994 found that 75 per cent of women with children preferred to be in the labour force, mainly in part-time work.Over the last decade there has been a discernible trend towards female-friendly work environments. This has allowed inroads to be made, particularly in management roles but not in the less skilled roles characterised by low pay, casual or part-time hours and poor training. Large Australian companies such as Lend Lease Corporation have established consultative bodies to look at ways to help employees manage work and family issues. Westpac Banking Corporation is another Australian company seeking to improve part-time career prospects for employees by examining ways to create a more family-friendly work environment. In addition, enterprise bargaining could provide an opportunity to redress work place inequalities for women. And these are the same enterprise bargaining opportunities that the Labor Party has so vehemently opposed over the last four to five years and continues to oppose at every available opportunity.However, it is an inescapable fact that working mothers consistently report difficulties in managing work and child-care responsibilities, and full-time working hours are on the increase because women are finding it increasingly difficult to dictate their working hours. Above this, women are making a huge contribution to the volunteer sector, and in many instances these women are not just full-time mums. The 1991 study Juggling time undertaken by the Office of the Status of Women revealed that women perform about 70 per cent of unpaid work, which equates to 3.39 billion hours per annum. When it is noted that women also perform 3.56 billion hours per year of paid work it is obvious that many women work a double shift of paid work followed by unpaid work. I can particularly attest to this in relation to Meals on Wheels and other community service activities that occur in my electorate, where many women are making sacrifices beyond their normal day-to-day hourly paid work.In the view of some, the two-income household of the 1990s has allowed women to, supposedly, have it all. It has given them the opportunity to take advantage of the structural community advances of the last two decades, including opportunities for further education and entry to professional employment. However, this change has not engendered a realignment of the division of labour in the home. For far too long the division of labour in the home has been seen as inherently genetic: a trait to which men are not privy. But it is obvious that the influx of women into the ranks of the employed and their desire to stay there after the birth of their children necessitates a re-division of household labour, and this labour includes the rearing of children.I am particularly pleased that the member for Dawson (Mrs De-Anne Kelly) is beside me as I give this speech because she is a very good example of someone who has a very promising career and at the same time has to balance it with the obligations of being a full-time mum.It is not insignificant that for a male employee a family indicates stability and maturity, whilst for a female employee a family assumes the role of a liability. Not surprisingly, in this double-standard laden environment most female employees agonise over the decision of when to start a family. The spectre of increasing numbers of female workers has not brought about a change in the traditional employment mores, which clearly favour the interests of males in the workplace. Although the presence of females in the workplace is obviously the norm, more is required from men than a general `welcome to the fold' before the concept of a working mother becomes a viable reality for women.It is indisputable that working women need to have access to adequate child-care facilities. It has not gone unnoticed that this federal parliament of Australia is failing to lead by example when it comes to supplying adequate child-care facilities—and I say that as someone who at the moment does not have any children. Heaven help the young mothers or, for that matter, the young fathers, such as Senator Winston Crane, seeking a parliamentary career, whether as a member or a senator, or even as a staffer.We need to give women in the workplace real options when it comes to working and motherhood. The option of giving up paid work altogether contrasts starkly with the vision held by many women of their own future—women who have gone on to further their education, who have sought to fulfil their ambition and gain financial independence along the way. And despite the easing of child-care problems which working from home has to offer, it is an inescapable fact that women workers also enjoy the camaraderie of the office workplace and benefit from the social contact, just as men do.The Department of Management at the University of Melbourne has reasoned that failing to introduce family friendly workplaces can cost employers almost $75,000 every time a key employee resigns. Facing a high turnover like this, employers clearly need to find a balance that will accommodate flexible working hours, parental leave and assistance with child care.Women are leaving full-time work in their droves for reasons not totally attributable to wanting more time with their children; nor is it because they hate work. It is because working women are finding it increasingly more difficult to keep up their dream of the perfect scenario: wife, mother and careerist. The juggling act has become too difficult, and working women are resigning in the face of work practices which accommodate careerist husbands and fathers but fail to accommodate the long-term benefits that changing the rules to accommodate working women would bring.It is therefore imperative that this brain drain be stemmed—for not only does the flow of women from the work force equate to a very real reduction in profitability and impact negatively on the level of competitiveness, but also society at large will suffer from the loss of initiative and prowess that these women take with them when they exit the work force. As legislators and members of this House, we should not always be forced to respond to socioeconomic inadequacies such as those borne by career women by imposing punitive measures on business. However, as a member of this House, I am going to do all I can to ensure that the choice faced by Janet Davison Rowley is little more than an historical hiccup on the road for true equality in the workplace.132317:34:001323Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—I grieve today for industrial relations in Australia. Over the past two years the trade union movement, its members and supporters have been under sustained and unprecedented daily pressure, attack, ridicule and abuse by members of the Howard government—and no-one has played a more divisive and destructive role than the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith).Last week, in an extraordinary admission, the minister actually confirmed that he had provided personal advice to the management of Patrick stevedores that they should not pay their work force because of a ban placed on overtime. The minister has totally overstepped his responsibilities as a minister of the Crown. Instead of trying to calm and defuse industrial disputes, and encourage resolution of disputes by negotiation in good faith, he is acting like an industrial relations consultant, pushing the line of the boss, at the expense of the workers.This is a minister who is prepared to pour petrol on any industrial spot fire to ensure that it flares into a major bushfire. Deliberate provocation is the essential ingredient of industrial relations under this minister. This action of deliberately provoking industrial disputes then stepping in with draconian measures is a very old ploy in industrial relations. What is most galling about the minister's personal advice to Patrick management is the fact that he and his colleagues, like the honourable member for Gilmore (Mrs Gash), run around the place every day, abusing waterfront workers and accusing them of engaging in a rort by using overtime to bolster their wages. Last week, on ABC Radio Wollongong, the member for Gilmore made outrageous comments about wages and conditions of waterside workers. I doubt that she has ever been on the waterfront; most certainly she has never been on the waterfront at Port Kembla.When waterfront workers place a ban on overtime, government members run around the place with indignation, screaming blue murder; they then advise the boss that the workers should receive no pay at all for the work performed. On the AM program on Friday, 20 March 1998, the minister said:. . . the Government condemns this strike. It is not in the national interest; it's not in the interests of the members themselves . . . I call on the MUA to call off this strike . . . This is a campaign of vengeance and greed.Vengeance is a feature of the involvement of the minister who stirs for conflict. Who was stirring for conflict in Cairns last year? Who was involved in the Dubai debacle? Who has been involved up to his neck in the Webb Dock lease to the NFF?The Howard government has played a serious and crucial role in all of these industrial conflicts—and, in time, all of the involvement will be revealed. I have never been able to understand the hatred this government has for the union movement and its members, especially those of the Maritime Union of Australia and the miners federation. I have no fundamental disagreement with workers choosing whether or not to be members of a union. All workers should have the right to make this decision. But also fundamental to this decision is whether or not a worker who chooses not to join a union should accept the flow-on of benefits gained by unions and their members through improved wages and conditions.It is very disappointing to see workers who choose not to be members of a union taking the benefit of a flow-on from negotiations by a union and the employer or through industrial actions. It is their right, they argue, not to be a member of a union, but they seem to me to be something like a parasite when they take the benefits that are gained. Too many of the workers who choose not to join a union happen to be only too prepared to take the increase in wages and better conditions which are won by unionists in the same workplace or industry.Workers have a right, as I said, to join a union if they choose. It is a right no-one can dispute but, equally, the increases in wages and better conditions which flow from the actions of a union and its members should not be available to those workers who make that choice. Workers who are not members of a union should not, as a matter of principle, accept the hard-won gains obtained by unions.I have always said that no worker knows the value of a trade union until they find they require its services. I have lost count of how many times a worker has been to my office, contacted me by phone or even written to me legitimately concerned about not being paid or not receiving some proper entitlement for their work. My first question always is, `What does your union say?' All too often they say that they are not in a union. It frustrates me no end to hear this response from workers who will not join a union, yet when they are in trouble—because they are being short-changed, are not receiving their normal hours, are being sacked or because the firm that employs them has gone broke—they run back into the fold of the union movement.I have had many cases of this over the last couple of weeks. I had one case over the Christmas break of about 20 teenagers who were employed at Shellharbour Square which became known as `the trolleyboys dispute'. This young group of teenagers wanted to get some money over the Christmas holiday for various purposes—one wanted to buy a pushbike and other things—and they got a job collecting trolleys. An operator from Sydney came down to the Illawarra and undercut the local contractor. These lads were paid $6 an hour. The contractor from Sydney said to Shellharbour Square that he would do it for $600 a week cheaper. So he did it for $600 cheaper by cutting the lads' salary from $6 to the princely sum of $5 an hour.But there was a catch to it: he said they all had to be retrained. The boys were retrained for two days on no pay at all. The contractor said the tractor drivers, who were a little bit older—I think they had to be 20 before they could drive a tractor—also had to be retrained. He chose their retraining day as New Year's Eve. It being a supermarket, one tractor driver worked on New Year's Eve for 13 hours and the new contractor told him that, as this was his training day, he would get no pay at all for the hours he had put in. The other boys—every one of them had been doing these jobs for a couple of weeks—were all retrained on one of those days over Christmas. The trolleyboys were retrained for two days, which meant they were not being paid at all for two days out of the princely sum that they were being paid.Just after New Year's Day they turned up for work one night and they were told that they did not have a job. The employer just sacked the lot of them without bothering to pay them the sum of money that was owed. Some of their parents came to see me about it. I got involved and after many arguments and battles we eventually got the money back. Mind you, we had to threaten that Shellharbour Square would be closed to all business unless the boys' just entitlements were met. They were met. That contractor is no longer employed, I am pleased to say, by Shellharbour Square. I must say that I have no criticism of the management of Shellharbour Square. They always acted most honourably in regard to the trolleyboys. Mind you, the threat of having the whole supermarket complex closed and a picket line put around it helped them to act honourably. Nevertheless, I have no criticism at all about what they did.Another case that I have recently been involved with concerns Pivot Fertilisers, a group in my area of Port Kembla which had four or six people working there for a couple of years. On Friday, 30 January these workers turned up for work and were told that the job that they had been doing for the past two years no longer existed. It is interesting to note that the company which provided the replacement workers is none other than the infamous Drake International, which has been granted an enormous slice of the employment services market by this government. No wonder those on the other side support them!All too often today this sort of thing is happening in industrial relations: many workers' conditions have gone and when they have a legitimate complaint they find the avenues of complaint have been taken away. It is indeed a very rough time for industrial relations. I am very concerned about what the future holds for industrial relations in this country as I see hard-won conditions in the workplace continuing to be eroded.132517:44:001325Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise tonight to pay tribute to the Queensland Sugar Corporation and to congratulate the chairman of its board, Bruce Vaughan, and its chief executive officer, David Rutledge, and his team. Despite the recent downturn due to the Asian economic crisis in the market for raw sugar, they have effectively insulated Australia and its raw sugar exports from a downturn in pricing. In fact, the pool price for 1998 is anticipated to be higher than that for 1997. This has been done at a very difficult time for Australian industry, and I would like to share with the House the way in which our excellent Queensland Sugar Corporation has managed to achieve this very secure outcome for farmers, millers and others who derive a livelihood from our great sugar industry.I would like to dwell on the Asian economic crisis and the impact that it has had on the market for raw sugar. The result has been a collapse in the purchasing power of our South-East Asian neighbours. The Indonesian rupiah has fallen by 70 per cent of its value since mid 1997. The Korean won has fallen by 50 per cent. The reason for this is a large undisclosed corporate debt in US dollars which was unknown to regulators in that country. The reaction of consumers, certainly in the short term, has been panic buying.As we know, the causes of the Asian crisis are that the Asian currencies have been artificially pegged high against the US dollar; there has been a great deal of encouragement for overseas borrowing; and US loans. The currency was devalued, so the ability to repay those loans has virtually evaporated. This has had an impact on the Australian raw sugar industry because Indonesia is a very large consumer of our sugar. Equally, Malaysia takes a good deal of Australian raw sugar. The market share within Malaysia is 70 per cent to 80 per cent Australian. We have exported to Malaysia 700,000 tonnes per year.Regrettably, these countries do not have the purchasing power that they have had in the past. The effect of this is a decline in sugar consumption in the long term and demand globally. Previous to the crisis in South-East Asia, it appeared that supply and demand were pretty much in balance. However, it now appears likely that there is going to be a surplus of raw sugar internationally. Since January, there has been a substantial fall in price. Last year, the price for raw sugar worldwide was 12c per pound US. Since 29 December, we have experienced a price fall of between 15 per cent and 20 per cent.I am pleased to say that the Queensland Sugar Corporation, the single desk seller for Queensland sugar, had the foresight to take out a great deal of price cover. The proportion of the 1998 crop which was priced at the beginning of February 1998 was 60 per cent—an unparalleled amount of raw sugar to be priced and forward sold. The hedging strategies have insulated the industry for 1998. As I have said, it is anticipated that the pool price in 1998 will be even better than it was in 1997.This is in no small part due to the relationship with refiners in South-East Asian countries. Queensland Sugar Corporation has taken great care to build strong business relationships with many of the refiners throughout South-East Asia. This good working relationship and trust has left our industry largely unaffected, certainly for 1998.I would like to turn to what it means for Australia as a whole that the Queensland Sugar Corporation has had the foresight to sell 60 per cent of Australia's sugar in February of this year. The anticipated revenue for 1998 for our nation is $2 billion. You would be aware that every one cent per pound movement in the sugar price means that Australia loses $170 million—if that movement is down, of course—or $33 per tonne. Also, every cent of movement in the exchange rate means a loss to Australia of $25 million, or $5 a tonne. If we had had a situation where we did not have a single desk seller with the foresight to hedge, the drop in revenue for our country would have been $200 million. Furthermore, if we had a situation where we had not had a single desk seller and our mills had been scrambling, one against the other, to undercut and to sell at what was obviously a rapidly dropping price for raw sugar worldwide, we would have dropped a further $80 million from our exports.Because of the foresight of the Queensland Sugar Corporation, this country has had a further $280 million worth of exports that it would not have had if, one, there had not been forward selling and hedging and, two, if there had not been a single desk seller. I would like to congratulate the Queensland Sugar Corporation. However, not everybody is as generous.I turn now to a presentation by Graeme Samuel, the President of the National Competition Council, which was made to the New Market Culture Conference in February 1998—the very time that the Queensland Sugar Corporation was so wisely insulating us against a fall in the raw sugar price. The National Competition Council has a number of responsibilities, but I will dwell on only one. It assesses the performance of various jurisdictions in meeting their national competition policy commitments. It also advises the Treasurer on whether the states and territories have achieved enough to justify their share of $16 billion of national competition payments.There is a saying that you can tell a technocrat but you cannot tell him much. I am afraid that Mr Samuel fits into this category. He said that there were some questionable arguments used to support the retention of the domestic marketing monopoly and single desk export sales in 1996 for the sugar industry regulation. What he said was really quite extraordinary. He said that the alternative to single desk selling is—wait for it—voluntary cooperative arrangements.This is extraordinarily naive. We do not have voluntary cooperative arrangements in the coal industry, and we have seen a recent plummet, regrettably for Australia, in coal prices. We do not see voluntary cooperative arrangements such that we do not need referees and coaches in sport. We do not see voluntary cooperative arrangements between motorists such that we do not need traffic police. I have to say that the thought that an export industry would voluntarily cooperate is quite naive.We have a mandatory single desk seller which is extraordinarily successful. We have just seen $280 million being added to Australia's exports for 1998 in what has been one of the most severe downturns we have experienced with our exports. Mr Samuel has taken very much a technocratic view of this and has not looked at the very fine way in which the Queensland Sugar Corporation operates.I would just make one final comment. Mr Samuel has made the point that, for the purposes of assessing compliance with the national competition policy agreements, the council takes the agreements as binding not only on the jurisdiction's government but also its parliament, particularly as governments change over time. We therefore expect the government to ensure that the parliament passes all appropriate reforms. Mr Deputy Speaker, like your good self, I swore an oath of allegiance to our sovereign, to God and most particularly to the people of my constituency. I am afraid I do not swear an oath of allegiance to the National Competition Council, and I think that Mr Samuel should really address his concerns in a far more thoughtful manner. I would like to congratulate again the Queensland Sugar Corporation and draw to the attention of farmers and millers throughout Australia the fine job they have done and will continue to do. They can be guaranteed the support of the Queensland National Party and of our members Australia wide in their excellent work.132717:53:001327Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—On 18 March 1998, just around the corner from my electorate office, I attended a rally organised by teachers and students of the Adult Migrant English Service in my electorate of Blaxland. That service has provided English language teaching to humanitarian cases and refugees and new migrant entrants to Australia for the past 26 years in my electorate. In fact, the organisation has been running for 50 years in the state of New South Wales. The rally was organised to protest against the tendering process that had been put in place by the current Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock. In that tendering process, which the Education Union and the AMES teachers argued had been faulty, was virtually all of the provision of English language teaching to newly arrived migrants. Each migrant is capable of getting 510 hours teaching to enable them to be able to cope adequately with living in this new society they are in and to provide a sound basis for them to become a complete part of the community, to seek work within that community and support their families.On 18 March various people attended and spoke: teachers, members of the community, members of groups, students and I. We did not have the minister present and we did not have any official delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs present. Instead, we had two members of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs there, but they were not allowed to say what their name was; they were there purely to take notes. The next day the minister was at the National Press Club and gave a speech entitled `Immigration reform: the unfinished agenda'. He outlined a series of things I will go to shortly, and in particular one charge that is extremely vicious in relation to the Australian Labor Party and in relation to the former ministers for immigration during the 13 years of the Hawke and Keating governments.There was no response by the minister to the 500 AMES teachers in New South Wales who from I July will be without a job in the area of their expertise, teaching English to newly arrived migrants. All of those people will have been displaced as of 1 July this year. When the minister went to the Press Club, he also issued a media release. There was no response to the people at the rally; that came the next day. The next day he announced that the first contract had been signed for English language tuition in New South Wales. He was very proud of that. He said in the press release:The contract between the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and a consortium led by the Australian Centre for Languages, ACL, is the first to be awarded in New South Wales under the open tendering process.The very first one in New South Wales, announced on 19 March, the day after that rally, was the excision of Adult Migrant English Service teachers from their role as of 1 July, after 26 very proud years of intensive effort and high quality professional expertise rendered in the service of their students. But Mr Ruddock in this press release effectively denies their competence, denies their professional expertise and denies the manner in which they taught for all of those 26 years in Bankstown and the 50 years that that organisation has taught in New South Wales. He states this:The new service delivery arrangements will provide better services for clients including a wider choice of provider, more flexibility in service delivery options, and better pathways to further study or employment.None of the students who were at the rally could bring themselves at this point in time to expect that they will have those advantages out of these new tendering processes, and certainly none of those experienced teachers expect this to be the outcome either.He argued that the aim in moving to open tendering was to improve the flexibility and effectiveness of English language tuition, while ensuring best value for money. That is the key here, not all the rest: the fact that the lowest tenderer at the lowest cost ended up with the contracts. We have already seen lots of other examples from the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Dr Kemp, in terms of providing tender processes and people getting in because they are providing the lowest cost service—not the best but the lowest cost. He also argued that there were advances in technology that help providers deliver English language services that are responsive to the changing needs of clients. I can only think that he is talking about the computer program, developed at a cost of millions of dollars by his department, that those AMES teachers have been using; that those services and computer resources will be given to the Australian Centre for Languages for them to use for the students that were previously taught by AMES teachers. So he argues that there will be an ongoing improvement in the way in which they are taught.Not one person at that rally believes what is in the press release of 19 March from the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. They know that there was a real quality program based on the professionalism of those AMES teachers and they know that this tender process, having been brought to a conclusion early, is the only answer that they are going to get from this minister. So in my electorate those people have been greatly hampered.I want to touch on one thing that he dealt with in relation to immigration reform and the unfinished agenda at the press conference. He spoke about the inheritance that he received as a result of Labor being in government. He said:In essence, the Australian Labor Party in Government was almost single-handedly responsible for destroying the Australian community's confidence in immigration policies and programs;I find that utterly offensive, as someone who worked for the previous Treasurer and Prime Minister and as someone who spent 10 years involved in ensuring that we had the best quality immigration program with the strongest possible controls. I, as the person in that position, regard that statement as utterly offensive. I am sure that every minister for immigration who gave their best efforts to ensure that our borders were secure and that the program was full, fair and equitable would share those sentiments. He went on to say:- Australians no longer saw them as operating in the national interest;- in many ways, these policies and programs provided fertile ground for the emergence of intolerance and in some cases outright racism.Here is the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs accusing the previous government of engendering racism in the community as a result of its immigration policies. Since this government came to power that message has been on their agenda. There was that message in the election campaign prior to March 1996, and that message has been in their kit ever since that election.We have a minister now who has openly said that racism in relation to the immigration program is a result of the previous Labor government. That is utterly offensive to anyone who has been involved in ensuring that we had a good, strong, fair immigration system. If there was only one thing that we did wrong while in government, as I pointed out in May last year, was not to tell all of the Australian people as forcefully as we could just how strong an immigration program we had.But, in league with the member for Bennelong, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has utterly distorted the situation that existed before he came to power as the minister. He full well knows how strong our immigration system was. This attack is a political one in preparation for the next election. Tied with the question of Aboriginal rights and the Wik debate, this is another of the underlying themes this coalition government will take to the next election—with social security matters being another one. (Time expired)132818:03:001328Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—I was going to talk today about a very important issue that a number of our colleagues in this place would have presented to them almost daily—and that is the issue of the Child Support Agency. Case after case is presented to me which indicate that there are major problems associated with the Child Support Agency, and it is an issue we must address. Two parliamentary reports have done nothing to change it. We are changing things slightly. But I also think there is a greater need associated with the Family Law Act, which is the basis of the CSA's problems, and it needs fixing.But there is a greater concern. I grieve today for my country and my community in relation to one specific issue. Over the last 12 months or so we have had a lot of people in the Australian community declaring themselves as weeping for their country, feeling dread for their country and feeling sorry that certain things do not happen in their country. There has been hand wringing about certain issues over certain disadvantaged groups. Frankly, they have been supported by a number of members in this place on both sides of the House.I have checked the Hansard since 1995. Except for a handful of my colleagues in this particular place, not much mention has been made, of any substance—and I apologise to anyone if it this is not the case—concerning disability services. There is a severe problem associated with disability services in the community.I am thankful to Father John Jegorow in the gallery who has said:The say the test of any civilised country is the manner in which they treat their helpless.Disabled people cannot care for themselves. Their needs are present for every moment, every day, every week, every month, every year. They cannot care for themselves. They are excluded from opportunity within our community. Their parents are faced with an unremitting battle where they have to plead and beg for help not only within the community but also for funding and during the whole process. There is a daily dread within families with disabled people of breaking down within their family.So I grieve today for the attitude, the approach and the lack of action that all governments in this country and all communities have towards disability services. Let me preface these comments. I am not pointing the finger at this government, the last government, the Prime Minister (Mr Howard), the Treasurer (Mr Costello) or the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) because I believe those three members are as compassionate as anyone else that I have met in this place. The problem that we have is the system in which we fund community services specifically with disability services. The problem lies not with politicians but with the bean counters.At the moment 13,400 people within our community require funding, 1,500 of which have profound disabilities and need help, need funding, but we are not adequately meeting these funding needs. Some 8,000 parents—that is, families—who are over 65 are still caring for their disabled children. These parents find it very difficult to cope with the lives they have with their children. I will quote from a newsletter I have here from the time to care program. It says:If I was to die tomorrow or become ill and unable to care for Matt temporarily or permanently, could you please tell me where Matt would go?This is from Grace P., who is a sole carer. Another quote from Mrs D.W.:First of all, having a handicapped child brings with it a tremendous responsibility, which can be very hard on relationships—that is why my husband and I divorced.Another person, Ms V., said:When cuts are made to disability funding, the reality of it is that families have to play an even greater role and take on yet more responsibilities. From somewhere we have to summon the energy to either fight the cuts or take on the duties just relinquished—be they therapy services, respite, provision of necessary equipment or whatever. This has to come from members of the community who are already severely disadvantaged.There is a severe problem with disability services and the way they are operated at the moment in our community at both the federal and the state levels. I call upon governments to readdress this issue. The Archbishop of Perth, Barry Hickey, said:Each of us must make a personal commitment, and a commitment as part of the community, to ensure that everything possible is done so that people with disabilities and their families have the same opportunities for a full life of dignity, joy and belonging. Reverend Wes Hartley, General Secretary for the Conference of Churches, said:All people have the right, and indeed the privilege, to a full and complete life. The value of that life and the equal rights of everyone (from the seemingly least powerful to the most powerful) can never be underestimated.Given that equal value and the equal right to claim on the resources of the community, it is a matter of concern to see so much of the community's resources wasted on trivia and so little expended on essentials.Ross McLean, the former member for Perth, now the Director of Policy and Parliamentary Liaison with the Chamber of Commerce, said recently:I continue to be amazed that—in a civilised nation with strong Christian and other religious traditions of tolerance and compassion, in a country enjoying high living standards, having an educated population and with well-developed policies and programs . . . I am amazed that in a nation with all this, it has taken so long for the opinion shakers and policy makers to provide the leadership needed to provide a more enlightened community response to the needs of people with disabilities.There is a serious problem with the way we fund or go about funding disability services in Australia. I think this issue will come to a head shortly. The time to care program is about to start a program—in fact, it was released last Thursday—called `adopt a politician'. Politicians from all over Australia will shortly be approached by families with disabled children to adopt that politician to show them what it is like to have a severely disabled child in their family.And I have news for my colleagues, both federal and state: this might be a brand new awakening to some of us because we need to address the really important issues of the community. There is a cry for help—a cry for help from disability services, from these families who really need the opinion makers and the community leaders to stand up for them because these people are there every moment of every day trying to fight this battle. They do not have time to go to public meetings. I went to a public meeting last Thursday which was not very well represented because most of the people were at home looking after their disabled child.What we need in this issue is compassion and care and a bit of humanity—not the bean counters, not those people who say, `No, let's cut it back right here,' those people who have always been in the Public Service no matter which government was in, whether it be Labor or Liberal. We need some people with compassion and a bit of humanity when it comes to disability services.I personally think that we should establish some sort of disability trust. At the same time I think when it comes to budget time every year we should address the need for disability services in Australia. We should work out how much they need—at the moment it is about $250 million—and give them that much. That should be the first cheque we pay out. We should draw the line and then see how many ships we need, how many other expenses we have. This is one area that we really need support for and help with.In conclusion, let me quote a song called `Cry for help'—I will not quote the whole song; I will read out just some of it—which gives a fairly strong message:Cry for help, please help a mother criesGive him what he's able to make meaning of his life.Lifetime rushes by herTomorrow's dreams denied herA child in need required her to forsake the life that was her own.Who will care for my loved sonWhen my life is done?133018:13:001330Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise in this grievance debate to convey to this parliament the opposition of the residents of western Sydney to the construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek. In doing so, I congratulate the people of western Sydney on their attendance at an anti-Badgerys Creek protest rally at Jamison Park, Penrith on Sunday, 15 March.I would also like to congratulate the Western Sydney Alliance of Mayors, who are in Parliament House today. As I speak they are speaking to the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile) and will present him with the document entitled A review of the draft EIS: Second Sydney airport proposal. These mayors are from the councils of Blacktown, Baulkham Hills, Blue Mountains, Campbelltown, Camden, Fairfield, Holroyd, Penrith, Parramatta and Wollondilly.The attendance of these 15,000 people at this rally at Jamison Park on a wet Sunday afternoon sent a clear message to Canberra that people in western Sydney do not want an airport at Badgerys Creek. An ALP regional assembly held at Blacktown yesterday—attended by federal members from Greenway, Prospect, Chifley and Reid; endorsed ALP candidates from Parramatta, Macarthur, Macquarie and Lindsay; and the Mayor of Blacktown, Charles Lowles—sent the same clear anti-airport message to Canberra.Many of the general public are critical of politicians because we appear not to be able to reach agreement on major issues, but in opposition to an airport at Badgerys Creek there is a degree of bipartisan support. I noticed at the Jamison Park rally members from both sides of this parliament, as well as state ALP members, Faye Lo Po, John Aquilina, Jim Anderson and Kim Yeadon.This is a clear statement that these members are prepared to stand up for residents of western Sydney and publicly oppose the airport. There is some irritation among some residents of western Sydney about the delay in making a final decision on Badgerys Creek. People see the government's decision to delay making a decision until after the next election as delaying the obvious and an unnecessary interruption to their lives. This point was clearly made by the alliance this morning at their press conference, where a member of the alliance said quite clearly that they are demanding a decision on Badgerys Creek by this government before the next election. I put it quite clearly that this is a major demand of those mayors in attendance in this parliament this evening.Most residents of western Sydney now believe that building an airport at Badgerys Creek is a 1980s solution to a year 2010 problem. The solution was based on 1960s and 1970s thinking and research. The western Sydney residential area has expanded and has become more dense, and is now a lot closer to the Badgerys Creek site than it was in 1985.Since 1985, residents of western Sydney have become more aware of our existing air and water pollution problems, and things would only deteriorate further if an airport were built in western Sydney. Western Sydney residents would agree with Joe Hockey, the Liberal member for North Sydney and chairman of the federal government's community consultative committee on airport noise, who is quoted as saying that Badgerys Creek was unsuitable for an airport because it was landlocked.Paul Zammit, the new independent member for Lowe is also reported as saying that Badgerys Creek is an unsuitable site. With Badgerys Creek we have a 360-degree problem. No matter which plan we go for, A, B, or C, planes will be flying over residential areas soon after take-off and therefore the residents of Parramatta, Macquarie, Macarthur, Lindsay, Chifley and Greenway will all be affected by aircraft noise and pollution.The people in the inner city have been complaining for years about increased noise and air pollution and only now are they being listened to. These people are able to get some minimal relief from sea breezes that can move air pollution. Unfortunately it moves westward, but at least they can get some partial, but not permanent, relief.The children of the inner city are bombarded all day and part of the night by aircraft noise. This stupid proposal for an airport at Badgerys Creek is to bombard 300 schools all day and all residents all night, with no curfew. In spite of this, there is a significant body of opinion, it appears, in Canberra that still wants to build an airport at Badgerys Creek.The federal transport minister is still saying that the government's preferred option for Sydney's second airport is Badgerys Creek. The Jamison Park Rally was designed to change the views of these pro-Badgerys Creek politicians, none of whom live in western Sydney. Kay Vella put the issue in its correct perspective when she said:The ALP's overflow airport proposal for Badgerys Creek is long gone. We are now considering new options, A, B, and C for a major international airport, with aircraft movements up to 360,000 a year and 30 million passengers—and this is the Liberal government's proposal, not Labor's proposal.I would now like to address the exaggerated claims about employment growth in western Sydney as the result of the new airport. The facts are that companies which win contracts for the construction of an airport at Badgerys Creek would be companies that are already operating in the field. So you would see workers and companies involved, for example, in the Olympic Games facilities, moving to Badgerys Creek. Few new jobs would be created.If airline companies did move to a new airport at Badgerys Creek, they would take some existing staff with them but, with outsourcing and technological change, employment in the direct airline industry is likely to reduce. Again, few new jobs would be created. Private economic activity does not expand close to an international airport. Ask the small business people of Sydenham, Leichhardt, Summer Hill and Petersham. What happens is that the commercial activity of an airport sucks up small business like a giant vacuum cleaner and the commercial activities of the region come under the control of multinational operators of the airport. Again, there is little new additional employment growth. This is a very important point I want to make. Whatever employment at airports is created, it is not reserved for people who live under flight paths; it is shared by everybody—whatever additional job growth there is.If I can move on to the EIS report, which we believe is flawed, technically, professionally and morally: one issue not seriously addressed by the EIS was the problem of two airports operating in the Sydney basin. Where would the boundary be when planes leaving Mascot meet planes leaving Badgerys Creek? What safety problems does this create? Did the EIS look at this issue? It did so only briefly, and without real comment. Why? Because it could not afford to buy the necessary information that would have enabled it to research this issue.The proposed role of the second airport should surely be first premeditated in a proposal and be fully agreed to. Can anybody show any evidence of any airline company that has indicated its willingness to move its operations to Badgerys Creek? In my view, it would take legislation in this House to force airlines to move their operations to Badgerys Creek. What is needed in this whole air transport matter is a bit of sensible but imaginative decision making that is not made with heads in the sand. There is absolutely no argument that can be sensibly raised opposing the building of a second airport at Goulburn tied to the fast train project.What people would do is simply board the train at Sydney Central, or perhaps Strathfield, and all their customs and other work would be completed on the train. On arrival at Goulburn they would simply join their aircraft and take off, with no further delays. Please do not tell me that a speedy embarkation process is not possible, as measures are already being prepared to speed up disembarkation of passengers during the Olympic Games in Sydney in a couple of years time. The technology is in place, the skills are available and the equipment is available. What is lacking is a clear and intelligent policy that will provide the very best airports and facilities at acceptable sites that meet all environmental concerns of the area.Remember that international travellers are asked to be at an airport two hours before departure. Many are looking at one or two hours drive to the airport. With better time management, this time could be usefully used travelling to Goulburn with the departure procedures being carried out on the airport train. With the creation of additional jobs being of major importance, the Goulburn option would create far more employment opportunities than building another airport in the Sydney basin.I conclude by, once again, referring to the alliance's submission, which is being presented to the minister today, and giving good reasons we are opposing the airport at Badgerys Creek: airport noise will ruin the lives of 1.6 million people; air pollution from Badgerys Creek airport and increased road traffic will increase asthma rates in western Sydney by as much as 50 per cent; and Badgerys Creek will ruin the education opportunities of 170,000 children. (Time expired)133318:23:001333Katter, Bob, Jnr, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—I rise today, in a period of great turmoil for the Gulf of Carpentaria and the little towns there. My grandad went up to Normanton in 1890, and my great-grandad sold up his shop in Brisbane and consolidated in Normanton and Charters Towers—which provides a great deal of mirth for everybody as to his commercial acumen. But, in fairness to the decision of my great-grandaddy, the AMP Society and the four main offices of the Bank of New South Wales were in the three major capital cities, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne—and Normanton. The reason for that, as even the most cursory glance at the map of Australia indicates, is that the most central port for all of the Australian land mass is Normanton.Without going into the political reasons—but I think that Mr de Tocqueville had a lot to say about it in his book on democracy in the United States when he talked about the `tyranny of the majority'—Australian government decision making is done by the big cities to suit the big cities; those people who are not fortunate enough to live in the big cities are left out and left behind. That is the basic explanation for the situation.I went up to these two communities—which are about 60 or 70 kilometres from the sea—and both of those towns were on the sea. The television footage that we took from our aircraft would indicate clearly that they had both become ports, even though they are not ports and are 60 to 70 kilometres from the sea. It was very scary at Karumba—an island, 60 or 70 kilometres from any land—because the people at Karumba had no all-weather airstrip and the airstrip was only in and out for a period of nearly two weeks with the cyclone and the subsequent flooding.The telephones were out all over the place. Even the town of Croydon went without telephones for a very protracted period, which is not new to us. Julia Creek recently went without telephones for 24 hours. That is because an area the size of Victoria—with 4,000 people there too, I might add—is serviced by a single Telstra technician. The corporatisation introduced by the Labor Party and the subsequent sell-off of part of Telstra has left us without services. You can talk about your community service obligations until the cows come home, but they are not being enforced now and they will most certainly not be enforced in the future.So we had the situation where we simply had to go without telephones. It was a matter of life and death. There were three men on horses in town when we were there, including Mick Gallagher and his son Ashley. They said that they were looking for cattle. Five hundred head had been on an island. Their telephone was not working. They tried to ring up to get a helicopter to come out to move the cattle off the island because they had no way of getting onto the island, but they could see it and see where the cattle were. A helicopter could have forced the cattle off the island, to swim across to where they could be rescued. But all 500 head of cattle were lost to them, at a value of about $300 to $500 a head. That would have been repeated many times over throughout that area. It was just lucky that they were cattle. It could well have been a station property that was going under water and, because there was no technician to repair the telephones and because the system that was put in by Telstra is very deficient in times of protracted rainfall, it could have been people being threatened by very real danger to their own lives, the lives of their children and their families.The port there needs to be dredged down to another eight metres, arguably, from where it is at the present moment. The state government has had to put all of the money in there. I am only too well aware of that because I was Minister for Northern Development. I was able to get the slipway electrified, get commercial electrification on in Karumba, build the roads in there, and supply the water there as well. But every single one of those things was done with state government money. That little port, with Century Zinc and the prawning industry worth probably between $100 to $250 million, depending upon what the season is like; and with the live cattle exports of many tens of millions of dollars going through it—we hope this year $100 million going through it—has nearly $1,000 million of earnings for this county flowing through it. What have they got at the present moment? They have a very intermittent airstrip, a very intermittent telephone service and no road access whatsoever. They are cut off for two and three months at a time with no road access. Yet there are some 3,000 or 4,000 people living in this corner of Australia. How can it possibly develop, bereft of all infrastructure and without the services that it once had?The constitution of Australia is very clear-cut. Aviation is a head of power that belongs to the federal government: it does not belong to local government; it does not belong to state government. Here is a place with $1,000 million worth of produce coming out of its hinterland. Without that port that produce would not be existing for the economy of Australia. Yet it is bereft of all of these things. We are asking the state government continually to put their hands in their pocket for infrastructure items exclusively. The net result of that is that there is no development taking place.I listened to the Tony Delroy program on the ABC very late—1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning—when I was driving back from Mareeba the other night. Speaker after speaker came on and said, `We couldn't have any more population in Australia because we haven't got any water in this country and because we haven't really got any decent land in this country.' That is the philosophy of Australians over recent years, and that philosophy has been led by the people in this House, I have to say.You can get in an aeroplane in Townsville and you can fly, as I have on many occasions, all the way across to Western Australia to, say, Broome, and for nearly 10,000 kilometres you will see no sign of human habitation out of either side of that aircraft. No-one is living there. This country is not occupied. That night, for nearly two hours, speaker after speaker rang in and said, `We have no water. We have no decent soils.'You have just flown over three-quarters of Australia's water and you have just flown over two-thirds of the nation's vertisol soils. There are 21 soil types—if my memory serves me correctly—and the top premium soil type is vertisol soil. Just along the Flinders River alone, there are 15 million hectares of beautiful, flat, rich, rolling, treeless black soil plains. How many farms do we have in North Queensland? I will not take the whole of that area. One-third of Australia's entire water supply is in North Queensland, west of the coastal ranges. I am not talking about where my office is at Innisfail where it never stops raining; I am not talking about the coastal streams—I am talking about the inland streams that run into the Gulf of Carpentaria.Of the five major rivers in Australia, by volume of water, four are in that area. The Murray-Darling is the biggest river system in Australia. The second biggest is the Mitchell, the third is the Starcke, the fourth is the Normanby and the fifth is the Burdekin. Four of those five rivers are up there in North Queensland. They have 10 times the amount of water of the Murray-Darling system and much more vertisol prime farm soils, and the Murray-Darling produces half of Australia's agricultural production. In all of that vast area of great wealth we have six farms.A quarter of the world's population will go to bed hungry tonight. I put this to the House: how long is the rest of the world going to accept the situation where we sit on those resources and do nothing with them? The world community will not accept the sort of morality that says that we are entitled to sit on those great resources—those great talents, in the biblical sense—that God has given us and do nothing with them. According to the Queensland government, if we were to invest a lousy $60 million or $70 million in the Hells Gate dam project, that will bring $720 million a year to this nation. (Time expired)10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! It being 6.33 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106, as amended for this session, the debate is interrupted and I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Sitting suspended from 6.33 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Auditor-General's Reports133510000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—I present the Auditor-General's audit report No. 37 for 1997-98 entitled Performance audit—Protection of confidential client data from unauthorised disclosure—Department of Social Security—Centrelink .Motion (by Mr Somlyay)—by leave—agreed to:That:(1) this House authorises the publication of the Auditor-General's audit report No. 37 of 1997-98; and(2) the report be printed.(Quorum formed)Bills1335r4131335Debate resumed from 10 March, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.20:04:001335Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—In summing up the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 , I want to thank honourable members for their contributions. I want to cover briefly two issues that have been raised during the debate. The bill amends a number of acts to remove the legislative requirement for the portfolio minister to approve the terms and conditions of employment, including remuneration of the principal employee of statutory authorities within the primary industries and energy portfolio, placing the responsibility for this process entirely with the individual portfolio organisations.In no other portfolio has the minister undertaken such a significant role in providing written approval to the terms and conditions of employment of a CEO. The proposed amendments are also consistent with recent developments in the government's approach to public sector workplace relations which indicate that it would be unrealistic to isolate statutory authorities within the primary industries and energy portfolio for ministerial approval of employment conditions—totally inappropriate. Ministerial involvement also necessitates administrative procedures which can be time consuming and which add to the risk of losing prominent appointees due to delays in finalising appointments.I now turn to the $3.6 million reduction in the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation's special appropriation for 1997-98. We have to make these savings because of the Labor Party's incompetence whilst they were in government. The saving will contribute to our goal of winding back Labor's $10.3 billion budget deficit. The saving will also help pay for the South East Fishery's adjustment program, which we had to set up due to the Labor Party's hopelessly inept management of that fishery. The saving is possible because the FRDC has substantial financial reserves. FRDC will still be able to meet all of its obligations. The reduction will not affect its long-term research priorities. The federal government funds FRDC in a slightly different way to its other primary industries research and development corporations. We make a very large unmatched contribution to the corporation in addition to matching contributions from the fishing industry.The amendments will only affect our unmatched contribution to FRDC. The government is continuing to match industry contributions on a dollar for dollar basis. The federal government remains committed to research for the fishing industry, and we are demonstrating that by matching the industry's contribution on the basis that for every dollar that they put in, the federal government will put one dollar in for research.I agree that fisheries research is important, but it was more urgent and important to fix up the south-east fisheries which were so disastrously mismanaged by the previous government. I commend the bill to this House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.1336Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:09:001336O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 to 29:(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (lines 20-21), omit the item.(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 3 (lines 22-23), omit the item.(3) Schedule 1, item 6, page 3 (lines 24-25), omit the item.(4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 3 (lines 26-27), omit the item.(5) Schedule 1, item 10, page 4 (lines 8-10), omit the item.(6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 4 (lines 11-13), omit the item.(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 4 (lines 15-16), omit the item.(8) Schedule 1, item 16, page 5 (lines 3-4), omit the item.(9) Schedule 1, item 17, page 5 ( lines 7-8), omit the item.(10) Schedule 1, item 19, page 5 (lines 11-12), omit the item.(11) Schedule 1, item 20, page 5 (lines 13-14), omit the item.(12) Schedule 1, item 22, page 5 (lines 18-19), omit the item.(13) Schedule 1, item 24, page 5 (lines 22-23), omit the item.(14) Schedule 1, item 33, page 7 (lines 5-6), omit the item.(15) Schedule 1, item 34, page 7 (lines 7-8), omit the item.(16) Schedule 1, item 35, page 7 (lines 9-10), omit the item.(17) Schedule 1, item 36, page 7 (lines 13-14), omit the item.(18) Schedule 1, item 37, page 7 (lines 15-16), omit the item.(19) Schedule 1, item 38, page 7 (lines 17-18), omit the item.(20) Schedule 1, item 39, page 7 (lines 19-20), omit the item.(21) Schedule 1, item 42, page 13 (lines 2-3), omit the item.(22) Schedule 1, item 43, page 13 (lines 4-5), omit the item.(23) Schedule 1, item 45, page 13 (lines 11-15), omit the item. (24) Schedule 1, item 46, page 14 (lines 1-2), omit the item.(25) Schedule 1, item 47, page 14 (lines 3-4), omit the item.(26) Schedule 1, item 48, page 14 (lines 5-6), omit the item.(27) Schedule 1, item 50, page 14 (lines 11-13), omit the item.(28) Schedule 1, item 52, page 14 (lines 18-19), omit the item.(29) Schedule 1, item 53, page 14 (lines 20-21), omit the item.I do not want to take too much more time to canvass the points behind the amendments that I have proposed, because I feel that I did that quite adequately in the main contribution I made during the second reading debate on the bill. I feel that the comments made by the minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott), a few moments ago would add little to the debate and certainly contain nothing that provided any comfort for those who share my point of view.To reiterate what these amendments are about, all bar one of them simply remove from the bill those sections which enable the minister to delegate power over senior appointments in the statutory authorities within the portfolio and to take no further role in the appointment of those people in future. As I said in my earlier contribution, we believe that there should be ministerial oversight of these appointments, so we are opposed to the attempt in this bill to remove from ministerial oversight the appointment of the senior personnel in the statutory authorities.The most significant component of these amendments is the proposal in the bill to allow the government to take $3.6 million out of the reserves of the FRDC to fund, in part, the extra work in the south-east fisheries—the structural adjustment. As I said the other day, if it were any other commodity area where there was a proposal to take funds from the reserves of the research and development corporation and use those funds to finance restructuring taking place elsewhere in the industry—if it were wool, wheat or meat—the members on the other side would be out of their tree. A number of them represent con stituencies where fisheries are a significant component, and I cannot understand why they are standing by and watching the research and development funds being pilfered for this purpose rather than being properly funded off budget, which they should be. This amendment seeks to delete that section of the bill which enables the government to raid the reserves of the FRDC.I will be persisting with those views; we hold them strongly. I have moved those amendments which will mean that the minister will retain ministerial oversight over the appointments of senior personnel in the authorities, and the other amendment will mean that the $3.6 million stays within the budget of the FRDC and the government will have to look elsewhere for its funds to carry out the completion of the structural adjustment taking place in the south-east fisheries.20:13:001337Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The government does not support the amendments. As I explained to the House in summing up, as far as research for the fisheries industry—which the member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) and the opposition are concerned about—is concerned, we are going to be maintaining our dollar for dollar contribution to research in the fishing industry, so it is not as though we are against agricultural research for the beef, wool or fishing industries.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—But you aren't going to contribute.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—We are going to contribute one dollar for every dollar contributed by the fishing industry. The government will not be supporting the amendments.20:14:001337O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I did not want to carry on the debate again tonight but, for the benefit of the minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott), I think that you have missed the point. The point is as I made in my contribution the other night. A number of the organisations, including state governments and fishery industry participants—who contribute on a voluntary basis to the research and development funds—have signalled, now that they are aware that the government is up to this stunt of pilfering from the reserves, that they may not in future make their contributions. So it is a bit of a Clayton's offer to stand up here and say, `We will continue to match dollar for dollar the contributions from the industry,' when the industry is saying to you, `Because you are pinching the funds, we are not going to contribute any more.' Of course, if they do not contribute any more, you will not have anything to match, and that is the whole point. So I hope that you can take away a better understanding of this and maybe even bring yourself to ask the minister to reconsider the position—call a quorum or something while you think about it—because I am sure that everyone would welcome a rethink of this on the government side. Question put: That the amendments (Mr O'Keefe's ) be agreed to.20:20:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr J.A. Forrest)46Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Bevis, A. R.Brereton, L. J. Brown, R. J.Crean, S. F. Crosio, J. A.Dargavel, S. J. Ellis, A. L.Evans, G. J. Evans, M. J.Ferguson, L. D. T. Ferguson, M. J.Fitzgibbon, J. A. Grace, E. L.*Griffin, A. P. Hatton, M.Holding, A. C. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Jones, B. O.Kerr, D. J. C. Latham, M. W.Lawrence, C. M. Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L. Martin, S. P.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Connor, G. M.O'Keefe, N. P. Price, L. R.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W.*Sercombe, R. C. G.* Smith, S. F.Tanner, L. J. Theophanous, A. C.Thomson, K. J. Wilton, G. S.81Andrew, J. N. 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. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Gallus, C. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.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.McLachlan, I. M. 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. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, A. C.Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.Willis, R. Downer, A. J. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.20:24:001338Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—In the course of the second reading debate, I raised a range of questions with respect to clauses 40 and 41 of the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 which affect the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. I took the opportunity of forwarding those questions to the relevant minister and asked that the minister at the table be in a position to respond to those questions in the course of the consideration in detail stage of this bill.Those questions which relate to clauses 40 and 41 and affect the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act were, in short, whether the High Court decision in the Commonwealth of Australia v. WMC Resources affects this legislation in any way, whether the Commonwealth has put its mind to that and whether that decision has any implications for this particular bill. I note that in respect of that decision the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) released a statement on 5 February 1998 saying that security of title was essential for offshore leases. Given that this legislation would have been prepared in advance of that High Court decision, my question was whether the government has put its mind to the implications, if any.Secondly, in respect of petroleum exploration area AC97-1, I inquired whether the required six-month notice to the nation state of Indonesia had been given in accordance with the treaty provisions. I inquired as to when that had occurred and, if that had not occurred, why not. I next raised a question as to the combined effect of article 248 and article 249, given that, under the delimitation treaty, the UNCLOS treaty—the law of the sea—applies. Articles 248 and 249 of the treaty have the effect that research which is conducted is required to be handed over to the relevant nation state. My question of the government here was the extent to which, if at all, research activity which is carried out in the offshore exploration industry is required to be handed over to the state of Indonesia in accordance with the UNCLOS treaty.This treaty was referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. In the course of submissions and public hearings on 2 September 1997 and 28 October 1997, it was asserted by officers for the Attorney-General's Department and/or the Department of Primary Industries and Energy that there was a complete answer to that question. That was asserted, but the complete answer to that question was not actually particularised or detailed. In short, that question—which is listed on page 22 of the report—is:. . . with respect to marine research, whether Australia has a duty to provide Indonesia all of the information detailed at UNCLOS Article 248 and 249(1)(b) and, importantly, to comply with any or all of the other conditions stipulated at Article 249.That arises as a consequence of article 7(i) of the delimitation period. The final question which I drew attention to was whether on the basis of, for example, seismic exploration this information is required to be handed over to the Indonesian government in accordance with the delimitation treaty. I would be very pleased if the minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott), was able to respond to my questions.20:29:001339Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—The member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith) has raised a number of issues about the amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act. He also wrote to the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Parer. On 12 March, the member for Perth came into this House and viciously attacked Senator Parer and then returned to his office and wrote the minister a letter asking for advice on these policy issues.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—What a shocking thing to do!YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTT—Do you want the answer or do you want to interject? I seek leave to table the answers in response to the questions which have been raised by the member for Perth of the Minister for Resources and Energy. I have nothing to add to the material that I have tabled.Leave granted.20:29:001339Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence, I would like a moment to consider the response, as it has been tabled rather than answered by way of debate and given that these are very important matters. The member for Corio (Mr O'Connor) might want to make some modest contribution on this bill whilst I read this answer.20:30:001339O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—Once again, the actions of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) at the table have really caused us to question the sincerity of the government with respect to—Mr Bruce Scott interjecting—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Minister, it is your government that has precipitated these actions by attempting to cut out research in the area of primary industry; is that not so? It is not only in the area of manufacturing industry where you have taken the biggest knife to research and development, but rural industries in particular are feeling the pinch from your particular actions—actions which have been especially highlighted by the amendment we debated previously—in slicing government funds to research in this country.This is a government and a minister that stand condemned, through the legislation we are now debating, in the way it has treated primary industry in this country. As I have travelled the length and breadth of this country, there are two particular certainties that have been expressed to me: first, that we have a bodgie minister who does not know how to handle his portfolio; and, secondly, that the people in rural areas are going to take the stick to the coalition when the next election comes around.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I think the member's reference to the minister being `a bodgie minister' should be withdrawn. I feel it is offensive, and I would ask the member to withdraw the use of the words `bodgie minister'.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw the term. I was merely referring to the minister's competence.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to draw your attention to standing order 85, which refers to irrelevance and tedious repetition. The honourable member for Corio is guilty of both. I ask you, in accordance with standing order 85, to direct him to discontinue his speech.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—The member for Corio is addressing the bill before us: the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 . I would ask him to contain his remarks to the legislation.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—Mr Deputy Speaker, I can understand the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) getting up and moving a point of order in an attempt to gag me from speaking. We have heard of the cow that jumped over the moon; the member for Fisher is the politician who jumped over the fence. He does not quite know which side of the fence he is on. One minute he is a member of the National Party; the next minute he is a member of the Liberal Party. I can give him the tip on this: there will be no more fence jumping; we certainly will not have you on the Labor side.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—You'll have a Democrat.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—We may well have an addition to our ranks, but it will not be the member for Fisher. The reason why we are moving these amendments to this particular bill is quite simply that this is not a government that has cared in any way about the future of the rural industries that are in debate in this particular piece of legislation—and I refer to the fishing industry in this country. We attempted to make an honest amendment to this legislation to send a signal that somebody in this House cares about rural industry in this country, but this is a government that has taken the knife to many areas of government expenditure on rural industries.I have spent a lot of my time out in regional areas. I might say, I have spent a lot of time in the Northern Territory and, as for the honourable member who is sitting opposite, the word there is that he is for the chop too. There will not be many government members left in rural and regional Australia after the next election.YT4SCOTTMr Bruce Scott—He'll be back.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNOR—He'll be back. Certainly, we will miss his pleasant smile. As I have moved through rural and regional Australia—and I made this point before rude points of order were taken on me to stop me from saying this—there are two things that come through in the discussions that I have had with people from rural and regional Australia. One is the competence of the minister—and that is a real issue out in the bush—which is reflected in the sort of legislation that we as an opposition are being required to debate here tonight. The other is that the people in rural and regional Australia are going to exact a very heavy price from the coalition for what they are doing with this sort of legislation. (Time expired)20:35:001340Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I am indebted to my colleague the honourable member for Corio (Mr O'Connor) for his erudite contribution. It has enabled me to give some modest consideration to the reply by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer), which has been tabled by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) at the table.In that tabled reply or answer, the minister says that there were three questions which were raised in debate by me: the High Court decision in the Commonwealth of Australia v. Western Mining Resources; the three-months notice of the proposed grant of exploration or exploitation in respect of AC97-1, which was to a consortium led by Cultus Timor Sea Ltd; and the six-months notice given to Indonesia in respect of proposed operations. The substance of the tabled document goes to those matters.What is not dealt with, and was not dealt with fully by the joint standing committee when it dealt with these matters, and not responded to at all is the very considerably important question about whether it is the case that research which is done by way of exploration is required to be handed over, in accordance with the UNCLOS treaty, to the nation state of Indonesia. That arises in this way. Article 7 of the treaty between Australia and Indonesia—which establishes exclusive economic zone boundary and certain seabed boundary—is the key article. It has the provision that the first party, which is Indonesia, may exercise exclusive economic sovereign rights in relation to the water column. Subparagraph (b) says that the second party, which is Australia, may exercise continental shelf and sovereign rights jurisdiction in relation to the seabed.That seeks to set up what is not a unique situation but is quite unusual—and there are two that I am aware of, one near Papua New Guinea—where one nation state has control of the water column and the other nation state has control of the seabed. Subparagraph (i) says: . . . marine scientific research shall be carried out or authorised by a Party in accordance with the 1982 Convention and such research shall be notified to the other Party . . .The key point here is that marine scientific research shall be carried out or authorised by a party in accordance with the 1982 convention. Is it the case, in the first instance, that seismic exploration activity conducted by petroleum exploration companies is marine scientific research? I would have thought that it is, and a couple of difficulties arise in that respect. Firstly, there is the prospect of interference by the seismic vessels as they operate. Secondly, you might find a suggestion or an allegation that somehow the seismic activity, including the sound booms which are used in seismic exploration, might disturb the fisheries environment, which is Indonesia's water column rights.In addition to that, firstly, what impediments might there be to the exercise of our exploration rights by way of seismic exploration research offshore? The key point is that UNCLOS applies. As I read it—as I said in my second reading debate contribution, I am only a lapsed lawyer, so I am happy to get guidance in these matters—there seems to me to be a very clear question that is thrown up by articles 248 and 249, which is that, if you conduct marine scientific research, you are required under 249(e) to make available the research results through appropriate national and international channels and to inform the coastal state immediately of any major change in the results of the program. Paragraph 1(b) of article 249 is also most relevant. It says:. . . provide the coastal State, at its request, with preliminary reports, as soon as practicable, and with the final results and conclusions after the completion of the research . . . So the question I am posing is: if a company, pursuant to an exploration licence which is granted in accordance with the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, is engaged in seismic exploration activity, is that marine scientific research? I would have thought that it was. Secondly, given that the delimitation treaty says that UNCLOS applies, is that company required under UNCLOS and under the treaty's article 7(i) to hand that over to the Indonesian nation state? That question is raised on page 22 of the committee report. It is not answered. It is asserted in the course of evidence given to the committee by way of public hearing and in the submissions from the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Primary Industries and Energy that there is an answer to this case. If there is an answer, I would like to hear it. If the answer is that we do not know and that this is a matter which in the end will be resolved only by consultation between the two nation states, then let us state it. (Extension of time granted) This is a very important issue.We are dealing here with a treaty. This government came to office saying there would be much greater rigour and scrutiny of the adoption of international treaties and much greater parliamentary scrutiny. As a consequence of that—and I will not go through the travails and the various arguments that we have had in respect of that matter—the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was established, and that committee posed a question. It is not fully answered by the committee report; it is asserted to be answered by evidence given by officers of the Commonwealth in public hearing and by way of submissions.I asked the question in the second reading debate. I took the precaution, which the minister at the table criticised me for because of other matters, of forwarding my speech to the minister and saying, `I have raised these questions; I regard them to be serious policy questions which go to the administration, the future, the security and the certainty of our great offshore petroleum resources industries,' and I expect to receive the courtesy of an answer.The answer that I have received by way of being dropped on the table in the consideration in detail stage does not answer the most fundamental question that I have raised: is it or is it not an obligation on the part of companies conducting seismic research in offshore waters in accordance with the delimitation treaty and the UNCLOS treaty, which is related to it, to hand over to the Indonesian nation states the results of that scientific research—yes or no? If the answer is, `We don't know,' lay the bill aside and come back; if the answer is you cannot tell me, lay the bill aside and come back when you can tell me, because this is a very important issue.I would have thought that a government which came to office saying to itself, `We treat very seriously the public and the parliamentary scrutiny of these treaties,' might actually just want to inquire about and answer that question. On the basis of the evidence given to the joint standing committee from officers of the Commonwealth, there is an answer. I would like the parliament to be the beneficiary of that answer. It is not provided by the committee report. It is not detailed in the public hearings by the officers. It is merely asserted. That is a most significant question.It is also related to the publication by the minister of the minerals and petroleum resource policy statement, which came out on 2 February. This report said, `We as a Commonwealth will not do a thing without firstly making sure we fully understand and appreciate the effect that our action might have on our great minerals and petroleum resource industry.' So this statement came out saying, `We will not do a thing to disturb your certainty. We will not do anything without fully understanding the ramifications.' This bill came through the system before that document.Has this bill been considered in light of this document? If the answer is, `We ain't going to give you an answer,' then the answer is it has not. So, having raised the question by way of a second reading debate contribution, having taken the precaution of forwarding my speech with the questions to the minister and having drawn attention to the fact both in my second reading contribution and subsequently that this issue is raised in the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties report but is not fully answered, I would like to get an answer.20:44:001342Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—I would refer the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith)—and I do admit that he has received the answers to the questions raised by him with the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer)—to the last paragraph of that response. For the benefit of those in the House I will read that last paragraph because it does explain the concerns that the member for Perth has just been alluding to:Petroleum exploration activities carried out consistent with an exploration permit granted under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act of 1967 are covered by article 7(d) in those areas where Australia has seabed jurisdiction and Indonesia has water column jurisdiction.Exploration for the exploitation of the resources of the seabed under titles granted, according to the provisions of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, are not marine scientific research for the purposes of the treaty and would not require separate notification to Indonesia under subparagraph (i).Thus the question of notice under subparagraph (i) would not arise, and companies carrying out such activities would not be required to hand over any such results to Indonesia. I hope that that clarifies the point for the member for Perth. I believe that that is what he was referring to. I think it has adequately answered his queries. I have nothing further to add.20:46:001342Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—It does not answer the question. The answer from the minister, from which the minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) has read a brief extract, says that exploration for and exploitation of the resources of the seabed under titles granted, according to the provisions of the PSLA, are not marine scientific research for the purposes of the treaty. That is an assertion that, under the act, it is not marine scientific research. But is it marine scientific research under the treaty? Where is the legal advice to us which suggests that the collection of exploration data by way of seismic research is not regarded, under the law of the sea, as marine scientific research? There is an assertion that under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act it is not.Here come the implications for that act of the Western Mining compensation decision. That decision said that, so far as offshore waters are concerned, there are no property rights; there are sovereign rights only. I am sure that a public international lawyer mounting an argument under the law of the sea would say, `Here you have the High Court of Australia saying that the rights which are given under the PSLA are not property rights—they are "sovereign rights"—therefore, that weakens or lowers the threshold as to the national rights in that area.'The assertion by the minister at the table is that, under the PSLA, the collection of this data is not regarded as marine scientific research. There is no outline or detail from the minister as to what provisions of the act lead to that conclusion. More importantly, if this matter were to come before an international arbitral body, which it would under UNCLOS if there were a dispute or an issue, the question would not be, `Is this marine scientific research under the PSLA?' It would be, `Is this marine scientific research under the law of the sea?' So the question has not been answered. There is an assertion in the document which has been tabled by the minister that collection of exploration data by way of seismic operation is not marine scientific research. But where is the international law of the sea jurisprudence which would lead you to that conclusion? I would have thought that the great nation state of Indonesia might want to take an entirely contrary view to that.This is not a matter which can be taken lightly. Is it the case that, under the law of the sea convention, the collection of exploration data in offshore waters is marine scientific research? If the government, on behalf of the Commonwealth, is asserting that it is not, what is the basis in international law for its assertion?It is not sufficient to simply baldly assert that the PSLA does not regard it as marine scientific research without in any way first giving reasons as to why that might be the case under the PSLA and without giving any reasons why that may or may not have been affected by the High Court decision in the Western Mining case, which effectively reduced the scope of that act by saying that there are no property law rights; there are only sovereign law rights—to which some commentators have said, `Whatever that is supposed to mean.' Where is the basis on which the Commonwealth is proceeding with such certainty and firmness?Do we have a legal opinion from the Commonwealth law officers? Do we have any idea of the public international jurisprudence which says why this may or may not be the case? This is a matter which goes to the fundamental operations of one of our great industries. I do not think that the government can come into this chamber, the question not having been properly answered by the treaties committee and not having been properly handled by the minister at the table, without giving to the parliament—a parliament which was charged by this government with far greater scrutiny of treaties, far greater public and parliamentary scrutiny of the international obligations that we are undertaking—an explanation as to why it has baldly asserted that the collection of seismic exploration data is not to be regarded in international law as the collection of marine scientific research and, as a consequence, in accordance with the law of the sea treaty, is not required to be handed over to the nation state of Indonesia.Bill agreed to.1343Motion (by Mr Bruce Scott)—by leave—proposed:That the bill be now read a third time.20:51:001343Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—I would like to speak—unusually—on the third reading. I will do so—unusually for a third reading speech—in accordance with the standing orders and in accordance with House of Representatives practice. We now have a bill before the House which has two clauses related to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act and which seeks to effect a treaty between Australia and Indonesia and which has implications for our offshore petroleum industry.In the course of the second reading debate, I raised a series of questions which were dealt with in the committee stage—I will not traverse them again in accordance with the standing orders. This parliament is now left with a bald assertion by the minister at the table, who is not familiar with the detail of this portfolio area, and with a document tabled on behalf of the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Parer) which does not answer the key question that I raised and does not seek to outline or detail the basis on which the Commonwealth and the government are now expecting this parliament to proceed.So you have a bill reported from the consideration in detail stage to the House for a third reading in the absence of clarification, in the absence of advice and in the absence of a clear view from the Commonwealth as to what the implications are for one of our great exporting industries. It is an industry very important to our economic standards, to investment, to jobs, to trade and to exports. I think that is an absolutely appalling circumstance for the government to put this parliament in: to come to office with a key commitment to far greater parliamentary scrutiny of treaties the Commonwealth is asked to enter into; and, secondly, to come to the community in recent months with a policy document which says, `We will not do one thing which affects our petroleum or minerals resources industries without running the ruler over it.' The ruler is not run over this in any competent or effective way.This House is being asked effectively to take this bill on trust. Given the state I referred to earlier of the minister and the importance which the Minister for Resources and Energy places, and the government asserts it places, on certainty for our petroleum and mineral resources industries, I do not believe that this is a situation which this House can tolerate. As a consequence, I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Perth from moving forthwith:That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `the House is of the opinion that the bill should not proceed until such time as the Minister has provided a satisfactory response to matters raised during consideration in detail by the Member for Perth'.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Forrest)—Is the amendment seconded?WU5O'CONNORMr O'Connor—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—The government has a very clear choice here. You can do the sensible thing and lay the bill to one side, you can brief the minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott), as to the implications for this matter, you can trot the law officers of the Commonwealth around to my office and take me through the legal advice which the Commonwealth has or you can come to this House and say, `Here is the detail on which we base our view that under 7(i) of the treaty and the law of the sea that seismic exploration data collected by exploration companies is not to be regarded under public international law as marine scientific research and therefore not required to be handed over by exploration companies to the nation state of Indonesia.'You can proceed in that very sensible, cautious and careful way, which will give some degree of policy certainty to one of our great industries, or you can seek to ram this bill through this House, in breach of your commitment to subject treaties to proper parliamentary scrutiny, in breach of your commitment to ensure that you would not do one thing without looking at the consequences for the minerals and petroleum resources industry in accordance with the statement released by the minister in early February and in breach of an express electoral commitment to provide the petroleum resources industry with certainty of policy.It is no great shakes to lay a bill to one side. We did not oppose the bill at the second reading. I spoke, unusually, on the third reading and spoke in the honour rather than the breach, which is the habit with third reading speeches, to say that the bill reported to the House was the subject of very grave concern, an issue expressly raised in the report of the Joint Committee on Treaties, an issue expressly raised by me in the second reading debate and an issue expressly raised by me to the minister with the express and specific request to please put the minister at the table in the position of being able to answer these questions for me, because they are serious questions. There is not one vote in the law of the sea and the offshore petroleum industry aficionados. This goes to whether the government is serious about discharging its obligations to one of our great industries and whether this government is serious about fulfilling an election commitment in respect of this parliament having a greater role for scrutiny so far as treaties are concerned.It is no great shakes just to put the bill to one side. You can brief me tomorrow morning. You can send the law officers around. The submissions and the documents of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—submissions Nos 1 to 24 and the public hearing evidence of 28 October and 2 September—contain assertions that there is a complete answer to my questions. All I want is for the parliament to be provided with that answer. I do not regard that as such a great ask.So you can do it one of two ways, it seems to me. You can lay the bill to one side, as my motion invites, and we can resolve this matter very quickly, or we can divide on this and the matter can be dealt with, no doubt, in another place. In the meantime, what will that consternation cause? That consternation will cause uncertainty so far as the petroleum resources industry is concerned and uncertainty so far as the adoption of this aspect of the treaty is concerned—all of which is entirely unnecessary. The Commonwealth has asserted by way of its law officers that it has a complete answer to the question I raise. I am happy to get the answer. I am happy to be persuaded or advised that the plain reading view that I have read into the Hansard on a number of occasions is wrong. I am proud of my lapsed lawyer badge. I am happy to be massively edified by a Commonwealth law officer who knows the law of the sea better than any of us here. So my suggestion is a quite simple and straightforward one: that the House should not proceed with this bill until the question I have raised is the subject of a satisfactory answer and a satisfactory response.21:00:001345Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPVeterans' Affairs10—We reject the motion to suspend standing and sessional orders moved by the member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith). We do not want to hold up the passage of the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 any longer.21:00:001345O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—This is just not good enough on the part of the government. The member for Perth (Mr Stephen Smith) has raised some very important questions about the Primary Industries and Energy Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1997 . They are very reasonable questions that he has put to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Mr Bruce Scott) at the table and the government here tonight. We expect a reasonable consideration of the matters that he has raised, not this simple attempt to fob off these issues and fob off these questions because the minister does not know what they are about and the advice is not here for the parliament to hear.The honourable member for Perth has raised some very important questions. What the government is proposing is a breach of an electoral commitment to this industry that it required certainty of policy in this area. Issues have been expressly raised in the treaties report. The member for Perth has drawn these to the attention of the House. I think it is quite reasonable that the minister at the table should answer the propositions that have been put by the member for Perth.If you cannot do that, then let us abide by the very reasonable request of the member for Perth to put this bill to one side so that he can avail himself of the sort of legal advice that could clarify these issues not only for him but also for other members of this place. I find it quite extraordinary that the government would attempt at this stage to muzzle consideration of what the honourable member has put before this House in a very reasonable way.I would ask the government to reconsider the proposition and its actions in this regard. It is a very simple and reasonable request that has been made by the member for Perth. There is literally no reason why this legislation could not be put aside, as the member for Perth has indicated, for further consideration until that particular legal advice on the issues that he has raised has been forthcoming. I urge government members to adopt that course of action. I commend the honourable member for Perth for taking the steps that he has to bring these issues before the House and to give them the honest and open consideration that they should have. Question put: That the motion (Mr Stephen Smith's ) be agreed to.21:07:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr C. Hollis)45Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Baldwin, P. J. Beddall, D. P.Bevis, A. R. Brereton, L. J.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.Hatton, M. Holding, A. C.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. McMullan, R. F.Melham, D. Morris, A. A.Morris, P. F. Mossfield, F. W.O'Connor, G. M. O'Keefe, N. P.Price, L. R. Quick, H. V.Sawford, R. W.* Sercombe, R. C. G.*Smith, S. F. Tanner, L. J.Theophanous, A. C. Thomson, K. J.Wilton, G. S.81Andrew, J. N. 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. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Dondas, N. M. Draper, P.Elson, K. S. Entsch, W. G.Evans, R. D. C. Fahey, J. J.Forrest, J. A. Gambaro, T.Gash, J. Georgiou, P.Grace, E. J. Halverson, R. G.Hardgrave, G. D. Hawker, D. P. M.Hicks, N. J.* Hockey, J. B.Jeanes, S. B. Johnston, R.Jull, D. F. Katter, R. C.Kelly, D. M. Kelly, J. M.Kemp, D. A. Lieberman, L. S.Lindsay, P. J. Lloyd, J. E.Marek, P. McArthur, F. S.*McDougall, G. R. McGauran, P. J.McLachlan, I. M. Miles, C. G.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.Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.Slipper, P. N.* Smith, A. C.Smith, W. L. Somlyay, A. M.Southcott, A. J. Stone, S. N.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.Wakelin, B. H. West, A. G.Williams, D. R. Worth, P. M.Zammit, P. J.Beazley, K. C. Howard, J. W.McLeay, L. B. Downer, A. J. G.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bills1346r4081346Debate resumed from 3 December 1997, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.21:11:001346McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—The second reading debate on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill will be I think fairly uncontentious in the House in terms of the clauses of the bill. I do not think it will be the same in the Senate. In my contribution I want to refer to some of the matters that my colleague Senator Faulkner, who is the shadow minister principally responsible for this area, will raise in the Senate because they are very important issues of public debate, important issues about the probity of our electoral processes, the probity of funding of one of our major political parties in this country.But, in speaking to the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 , I want to make it clear that the opposition supports the majority of the provisions in this bill. That is not surprising. After all, the amendments it proposes are of a technical or administrative nature, dealing with electoral administration and operational procedures in the conduct of elections and referendums.The government has just distributed some amendments regarding application forms for postal votes. The opposition will be supporting those also. We have had only a very brief opportunity to examine them but, as far as we can tell, they are matters which we will be pleased to support. We certainly will support them here in the House. Subject to further analysis by my colleague Senator Faulkner, that will be the case in the Senate. I see no reason why it should not be.There is one item that we do wish to seek to amend in the House. I hope it will attract the support of the House. We wish to take item 48, the overseas elector provisions, a little further. We are pleased to see the government attempt to address this issue. However, they do stop short of a full implementation of the recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in their report on the 1996 federal election. Of course, governments have the right not to implement committee reports, even unanimous reports of joint committees, because that is the nature of the executive initiative in our Westminster system.This committee has been a tradition of some 15 years standing—since I think Mick Young, as the minister responsible for electoral matters, initiated the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. It may have been a select committee for one or two elections.It has made very important reviews. We have had a continuing bipartisan approach—not to every issue on electoral matters, because some of them are fundamentally very contentious and matters of principle between the parties. Therefore, of course, we have robust debate about those. But the overwhelming majority of these technical/administrative matters have been dealt with very professionally by that committee over the years. I have appeared before it as a witness before I was in the parliament and in fact on one occasion since, and I have seen its reports in my capacity as a minister. I think the committee, over the years, has done a very good job. In this instance the government has chosen not to fully implement the recommendations of the joint standing committee.Particularly with regard to item 48, as the legislation currently stands, electors who travel overseas for a period of three years or less may remain on the roll, provided they register with their DROs as eligible overseas electors. They must do so within three months before leaving to go overseas or within 12 months after leaving Australia. This period can be extended by annual application. The committee recommended that the three-year period be extended to six years and the capacity for electors to apply for further extensions on a year-by-year basis should be retained.This legislation falls short of that recommendation as it limits the time limit for applications to two years. This would not be useful to those overseas voters who have already been overseas for more than two years and who have lost the opportunity to apply for overseas voter status. Our amendments seek to ensure that, from 28 days after the date of royal assent, any Australian overseas for the purpose of employment, or their spouse or children, can apply for overseas elector status for a period of six years, with the option of annual extensions. I would not expect a flood of applications taking advantage of this measure, although it does empower those Australians overseas who really want to exercise their right to vote in Australian elections.It seems to me the principle underlying the electoral legislation ought be that all the Australians who wish to vote ought be given the opportunity to vote as best we are able. The reasoning is to allow those Australians who have been affected by this clause in their legislation to take advantage of this new amendment. A number of people have been actively campaigning for this change and it would seem somewhat absurd if the desired change were achieved with a two-year time limit on applications and those very people who have been campaigning for the change were still not eligible to enrol.We also believe that many people do not actually think about such things as electoral enrolment until elections come round. Someone who went overseas just after an election may otherwise miss the two-year cut off before thinking about elections and enrolment in the election year. A two-year cut off seems a rather anomalous provision in an electoral system that has a three-year electoral cycle. You would have thought that three, six, nine years, et cetera and those things that go up in threes would have been a more appropriate cut-off.I would also note that the majority of recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters have not been addressed in this legislation, which is fair enough. The government is essentially trying to put the non-contentious matters here before us and it is important to get those dealt with. I understand the government has plans to introduce further legislation to address the other perhaps more controversial recommendations and we will be very interested to see what they come up with in response to those matters. There has been some recent speculation in the media which might be a course of interest and that will be pursued more by my colleagues in the Senate.However, what I do want to do this evening is take the opportunity on behalf of the opposition to flag certain other amendments to this bill that we will be moving in the Senate. I have outlined our general support for the bill, our support for the government's amendment and support for the amendments we will be moving here. Those are essentially, as I say, about technical, machinery matters—not unimportant matters; they are important to the efficient operation of a democracy, but they are not controversial. Not that I necessarily expect our amendment to be carried here in the House but, either way, I do not think it is a matter of great contention.But the matters that we will be dealing with in the Senate are very important. We will be moving amendments there to close what seems to be a loophole in the Electoral Act, the loophole which the Liberal Party of Australia has been exploiting. The Liberal Party again has been sidestepping the disclos ure provisions of the Electoral Act. This is not surprising; they have form in this matter. At every stage in the legislation, at every attempt to close the loopholes, the Liberal Party has found a new loophole seeking to avoid disclosure as far as possible. On each occasion the parliament has had to come around again and legislate to close the loophole.It is a mind-set not dissimilar to that with the tax avoidance industry: if you can avoid the letter of the law, it does not matter if you tear apart the spirit of the law. The spirit of the disclosure provisions has been clear ever since they were introduced. It is that the intention is that the Australian people be able to know who is funding the political parties in their election campaigns. It is an issue in most Western democracies now: how are the major political parties funded and can we get an understanding of whether there is some influence being brought to bear as a result of those funding arrangements? To seek to avoid it on each occasion, as the Liberal Party has done on each and every occasion, including this one, simply reinforces the concern that there is something to hide.The Liberal Party has had a history of exploiting apparent loopholes to launder money from undisclosed sources. It is not a big secret. Everybody knows how they did it up until 1995. The Liberal Party used the Free Enterprise Foundation. They laundered funds through donations of massive sums to the coalition, without revealing where the funds originally came from, that is, donors gave their money to the Free Enterprise Foundation, the Free Enterprise Foundation donated to the Liberal Party, all the disclosure provisions said was, `Donation from Free Enterprise Foundation', and nobody could go behind that to say what was the original source of the money. It might have met the letter of the law, but it tore apart the democratic spirit of it; it tore apart the proposition that the Australian people are entitled to know who is funding the political parties.The previous Labor government amended the Electoral Act to close this loophole by determining that associated entities had to disclose their source of funds. This resulted in a crackdown on disclosures in 1995 and, shock and horror, the Free Enterprise Foundation was required to disclose any new donations it received. Straightaway, we find a new scam. Let us have a look at the Liberal Party's 1996-97 returns to the Electoral Commission. We know that at the election the Liberal Party had a $10 million debt to the National Australia Bank, which gave them financial backing for the 1996 election campaign. That should have been public; it is public and that enables people to debate. There has been comment on and general acceptance of the fact that that $10 million of debt underwritten by the National Australia Bank in effect was given on the condition that the Liberal Party, if elected to government—as they have been—would let the banks into the superannuation industry, as they have done and as they are seeking to do even further. We might not like that but the donation of all that money was on the public record.The Liberal Party's return to the Electoral Commission for 1995-96 listed their debt to the NAB at $6,762,763. But lo and behold by 1996-97 the debt to the NAB has been reduced to $158,305. For the same year a new lender was listed for the first time—the Greenfields Foundation—to which the Liberal Party owed $4,650,000. This is not some great financial institution; I would not want to turn up at the Greenfields Foundation and say, `Excuse me, can you lend me some money for a mortgage for my house?' If I were trying to set up a new business here in Canberra—that is where Greenfields Foundation is—I would not back myself to get a small business loan from the Greenfields Foundation.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Your counterpart goes to Ron Walker.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—That is right, and I think Ron Walker goes to the Greenfields Foundation. We have this new scam. The trustees of the Greenfields Foundation do not appear to be current officials of the Liberal Party but, the House will be shocked to know, they certainly appear to share an uncanny number of contacts with the Free Enterprise Foundation. That will be a surprise to every body, I know. For example, the Greenfields Foundation shares two of the three trustees with the Free Enterprise Foundation—Mr Tony Bandle and Sir John Atwill, who just happens to be a former president of the Liberal Party.The 1996-97 disclosure shows the Free Enterprise Foundation having a postal address of GPO Box 292, Canberra, ACT 2601. But the trustees of the Free Enterprise Foundation have a postal address of C/- PO Box 52, Deakin West, ACT. This postal address was used by the Free Enterprise Foundation itself in 1995-96 and—wait for it—it is now used by the Greenfields Foundation. The same postal address is also used by Bandle McAneney & Co., to whom we will refer in a moment. You might remember that Mr Tony Bandle was one of the trustees of both the Free Enterprise Foundation and the Greenfields Foundation and Mr McAneney is the third trustee for the Greenfields Foundation. So, we have this connection between Bandle, McAneney and the Greenfields Foundation, and the Free Enterprise Foundation telephone contact on their return is for Bandle McAneney & Co.I am advised, Mr Deputy Speaker—you will be distressed to hear this—that Bandle McAneney & Co. has also been a signatory for Liberal Party cheques. I am sure that they are not associated in any way. This is just the most extraordinary series of coincidences! Nobody would say that these bodies are in any way associated, because, you see, the Electoral Act says that all donations over $1,500 to political parties must be disclosed. The source of money for the Greenfields Foundation, it is claimed, does not have to be disclosed because the money was in the form of a loan to the Liberal Party. For this reason it is alleged that the source of the money to the Greenfields Foundation does not need to be disclosed under the Electoral Act.There is nothing wrong with making a loan to a political party. Financial institutions do it all the time and the debt is disclosed. If there is a debt to the National Australia Bank or the Commonwealth Bank, everybody understands the commercial ramifications of that and you observe it rising and falling with the fundraising and expenditure programs of the parties. That is a proper piece of public information. But the problem arises from the fact that we have here the possibility that the Greenfields Foundation can collect substantial donations from sources which remain anonymous for the purposes of funding disclosure. This will remain the case until the AEC determines them to be an associated entity.It is not for me to determine that the Greenfields Foundation is an associated entity of the Liberal Party. The overlapping signatories, addresses and other elements of profound coincidence may be found ultimately to be just that. What we have is the effect that money is being forwarded to the Liberal Party and the sources of that money are not disclosed, contrary to the clear intention of the parliament and the clear and reasonable expectation of the Australian people. We do not know whether the loan will ever be repaid, how the funding is secured and whether the interest rate is concessional. We have made changes to the tax act so that—0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order of relevance: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this is a bill for an act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—As I understand it, the honourable member for Canberra was pointing out where he saw deficiencies within the act, which is within his right to do. There is no point of order.0V5SLIPPERMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, on another point of order: the bill is a fairly narrow bill. It relates to technical amendments. The member for Canberra is ranging very widely, well removed from any amendment included in the legislation. The closest he has come is to tell us that he wants to talk about matters which will be moved by Senator Faulkner in the other place. I would ask you to request that he be relevant and remain within the standing orders of the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There is a list of speakers and since you have set the guidelines I hope everyone in the chair follows those strict guidelines as to relevance.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do accept that we need to remain relevant, but it is important to say what is not in the bill that should be there. That is a perfectly relevant thing to say. This bill should cover this matter. This loophole should be closed at the first opportunity. This is the first opportunity, and nobody has taken any action to close it. I am criticising this government for failing to disclose it, and the points of order being raised will not stop me from doing so.As I was saying before I was interrupted, we have changed the tax laws. I think this government changed the tax laws so that when you enter into non-commercial rates of interest in transactions, particularly with bodies with which you are associated, certain tax consequences follow. That is, in effect, deemed to be income. We do know that the Liberal Party has made a payment of $100,000 to the Greenfields Foundation. That money may have been a repayment. The timing does not make it clear. It might have been made as a grant to set up the foundation.Even if it is a repayment on a loan, it is a very lucrative rate, at about 2½ per cent, and would not be a loan on any commercial basis. Therefore, there would be a significant element of donation if a non-commercial loan were provided. At the very least, apart from the tax consequences for the Greenfields Foundation or for the Liberal Party, what it says is that the difference between the commercial interest rate and the interest rate at which the money is loaned would seem to me to be properly regarded as a donation for the purposes of the act. What is occurring is that, by using this apparent loophole in the Electoral Act, the Liberal Party is receiving moneys through a loan which it may never have to nor ever intend to repay.Section 287 of the Electoral Act defines an associated entity as one which is either controlled by a political party or which operates wholly or mainly for the benefit of a political party. Section 314AE of the Electoral Act requires an associated entity to lodge an annual return, including details of all gifts of more than $1,500 received during the financial year, and specify the details of the donor. Greenfields have not lodged such a return, and we await with great interest a request from the Australian Electoral Commission to require such a return.The AEC's regular audit of the Liberal Party could reveal the terms of the loan and other information that may reveal the Greenfields Foundation as an associated entity, one which operates wholly or mainly for the benefit of a political party. We are seeking some action on this matter. We would like to see the law changed, and we will seek to do that in the Senate. In the interim, we do know that the Australian Electoral Commission wrote to Greenfields to inquire as to their status as an associated entity. However, the response of Greenfields was that they did not feel they were required to provide further information, which is very convenient.I draw the attention of the House to the Australian Electoral Commission's Funding and disclosure report: Election 1996, in particular, recommendation 10 regarding associated entities. The report identifies that there are some areas of dispute in the wording of the act's definition of associated entities and that these should not be allowed to become sources of confusion or loopholes. To date the AEC has relied upon the cooperation of organisations in engaging in discussions as to their status as associated entities. However, in some cases the AEC has been unable to determine whether an organisation should disclose as an associated entity.There is currently nothing to prevent an organisation from simply claiming that they do not meet the definition of an associated entity and by so doing refusing to supply any justification for their stance. This is exactly what the Greenfields Foundation have done. They have deliberately exploited the apparent loophole in the definition of associated entity by writing back that they did not consider themselves to be an associated entity with not one shred of adequate information to justify that stance. Given the connections between the Liberal Party, the Free Enterprise Foundation and the Greenfields Foundation, it is essential that the Australian Electoral Commission investigate the Greenfields Founda tion to ascertain whether or not they qualify as an associated entity.At the moment the Australian Electoral Commission feels constrained from acting. During the estimates committee process, the AEC claimed that we have no authority in the act to go behind a separate foundation on the basis of any suspicion that we may have. They have conceded that they may be able to pursue the Greenfields Foundation after a regular compliance audit of the federal Liberal Party. However, we may have to wait for as long as two years for that to occur. It is a clearly totally unsatisfactory situation. As far as the Labor opposition is concerned, we are not prepared to wait for this government to take action, firstly, to get the compliance audit happening as a matter of urgency and, secondly, to act to close this apparent loophole in the act. We do not expect this government to act, because it is not in their financial interest to do so. They have a loophole which they are exploiting. They are not likely to move to close it.The debate of this bill provides the perfect opportunity to close this apparent loophole by way of amendment to the Electoral Act. The government should have acted but not surprisingly they have not. We are now as an opposition working on detailed amendments to make sure that the Liberal Party cannot exploit the funding and disclosure provisions in the act in the way that they have, and we will be doing everything we can to expose this rort and to close the opportunity for it to continue to be exploited. That is a debate which will be very important in the Senate. I hope that the amendments we move at that stage are successful. I reiterate that the opposition supports the majority of the provisions in this bill. We support the government's amendments. When we get to the consideration in detail stage we will be moving an amendment in the House to item 48. Beyond that, we will be supporting the legislation.21:36:001351Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—When one listens to the honourable member for Canberra (Mr McMullan), one is treated to a journey traversing what the member himself claims are deficiencies in the legislation left to this country by the former government. The honourable member for Canberra did not in any way, shape or form suggest any illegality by the Liberal Party of Australia with respect to the disclosure of various matters concerning funding of the last election. In fact, there is no evidence at all that the Liberal Party has acted in any way which is either improper or illegal, and I believe that it is entirely inappropriate for the honourable member for Canberra to come into the chamber and smear the Liberal Party when the Liberal Party quite scrupulously and quite obviously has kept within the law of this land, as left to this country by the former Labor government.HM5GEORGIOUMr Georgiou—Disgraceful!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is a disgraceful action by the honourable member for Canberra, as has been pointed out by the honourable member for Kooyong. I believe that what the member for Canberra ought to have done was to come into the chamber, stand up and say that this was a bill dealing with non-contentious amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. He went on to say that the opposition did not oppose most of the changes in the legislation, with the exception of one additional suggestion: an amendment dealing with the rights of certain overseas voters. He ought then to have gone into the history of this legislation—how it has its genesis in three different reports handed down by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, now ably chaired by my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Nairn). He ought to have said that the government was going to receive the fulsome support of the opposition in this bill. But, regrettably, having said those things initially, he went on to smear the Liberal Party, he went on to deviate from the specific provisions of the bill, he went on to pre-empt discussion in the other place and then he went on to refer to matters which would subsequently be raised by Senator Faulkner.This is a technical bill, dealing with matters which people on both sides of the House broadly support. The government, as has been foreshadowed, will further consider changes to the electoral legislation, but those changes are not included in this bill. The honourable member for Canberra conceded that it was important that the non-contentious changes should pass through parliament and should become law, and that is exactly what the government is doing. Senator Minchin has divided the non-contentious from the more contentious areas with a view to facilitating the immediate implementation into law of the changes provided for in this bill.Some of the major provisions of the bill include allowance for the provision of gender of electors for the purpose of approved medical research and public health screening and for members, senators and registered political parties. The bill also improves the enrolment objection process by allowing relatives and friends who do not live in the same subdivision as electors of unsound mind to apply for their removal from the roll on medical advice and without the payment of an objection deposit. The bill also provides for electors whose enrolment has been objected to to be removed from the roll in the period between the issue of the writ for an election and the close of the rolls.Most importantly—and this is a change which will save some $1.1 million for every three years of a parliamentary term—the bill will allow the Australian Electoral Commission the option to use the more up-to-date method of printing security ballot papers instead of watermarked ballot papers. This will make the considerable savings I mentioned a moment ago.The bill also provides that comments and objections in relation to a redistribution are made available for public scrutiny in a manner similar to suggestions. Most importantly for rapidly growing areas and states, the bill relaxes the tight constraints on electoral variations between electorates to allow the community of interest factors to be properly considered. The bill also allows greater opportunity for the public to object to proposed boundaries.The bill goes on to provide for the removal of the requirement that persons or organisations must object to a redistribution committee proposal to be able to lodge an objection to the augmented Electoral Commission's proposed redistribution and, most importantly, it allows for the redistribution midpoint equality of enrolments to be within a range of plus or minus 3.5 per cent rather than the present plus or minus two per cent.I would like to refer to that particular aspect. Because of mass internal migration from the areas we like to refer to as the rust belt of southern Australia to Queensland—particularly south-east Queensland—we are finding in Queensland that every three years we have a redistribution and every three years Queensland gains an extra electorate at the expense of Victoria, South Australia or the ACT. In fact, the two states of South Australia and Victoria and the ACT, at the redistributions in 1991, 1994 and 1997, have each respectively lost a seat to Queensland. So, while the Electoral Act makes a very sensible provision for redistributions over a certain period, Queensland is gaining a seat every three years as a result of growth and this redistribution, and of course there must be a redistribution also in the state or territory losing a seat. I believe that if the amendments provided for in this legislation become law it might be possible for some of the changes which are being made to the boundaries of electorates to be minimised.The amendments included in the bill certainly would not remove the entitlement of Queensland to gain an extra seat every three years, but it might mean that some of the alterations which have occurred in some of our seats would be less dramatic and less disruptive. As an indication of the kind of disruption experienced by Queensland electorates, I would like to draw the attention of the House to what has happened to the electorate of Fisher—a finely represented electorate in this place—which has in the last three terms of parliament undergone three redistributions. In the 1991 redistribution, the electorate of Fisher was 8,086 square kilometres. It gained 30,136 voters and lost 53,744 voters. In 1994 the electorate grew to 9,583 square kilometres, and it gained 18,000 voters and lost 29,232 voters. If that was not enough, in 1997, the redistribution recently completed, the size of Fisher is reduced—in fact it collapses—from 9,583 square kilo metres down to 558 and gains 28,433 voters and loses 31,616 voters.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Are you worried about your electorate payments?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—Happily, the political complexion of Fisher will not change as a result of those redistributions. However, the point is that there is very great disruption and electors do not know from one poll to the next what seat they are going to be in. The member opposite ought not to interject in this debate; he should support this legislation and tell the honourable member for Canberra to stick to the bill and not to digress in the disgraceful way that he has.The Labor Party likes to talk about electoral funding. Why will the Labor Party not tell us how the trade union movement funds elections after elections after elections when, in many cases, members of those trade unions have no idea that their money is being used for that purpose? Trade unionists are members and supporters of all political parties and yet, despite that, the Labor Party virtually misappropriates their money and uses it for electoral purposes to support the Labor Party—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order!0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—when the members of those unions oppose the Labor Party.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Fisher should know that when the chair calls for order and the member sees another member on his feet he should resume his seat. I call the honourable member for Batman on a point of order.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I take exception to the use of the word `misappropriation' and I ask that it be withdrawn.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member has asked for the word to be withdrawn. It would assist the process of the debate if the honourable member for Fisher would withdraw the word.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I am happy to withdraw the word `misappropriation' as it refers to the honourable member for Batman. Of course I did not include him in that description; I was referring to the organisational entity called the Australian Labor Party. I am warming up in this debate—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are being relevant too, I hope.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—and I would delight in being able to proceed for another 10 minutes but unfortunately the government is very keen to have this bill passed by this chamber and we have been invited to restrict our speeches to a period of 10 minutes only. Thus the pearls of wisdom that I was going to cast forth—and I regret that the member for Batman will now not have the chance of listening to them—will have to wait for another opportunity.In a democracy, an electoral system with integrity is a prime aim. It is absolutely vital that on polling day we make sure that the government which is elected represents what the people of Australia wanted to happen on that day. Nothing focuses our attention as members of parliament more than electoral matters.This bill is fair, it is reasonable, it is moderate and it is non-contentious. It will receive the support of this House and, hopefully, the other place. It is vital that it becomes law as soon as possible. The disgraceful conduct of the honourable member for Canberra, and no doubt that conduct which we are yet to see from other members opposite, is very regrettable. I would ask that succeeding Labor speakers stick strictly to the provisions of this bill, as, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am quite sure you will concede that I have. I commend the bill to the House.21:48:001354Rocher, Allan, MPMr ROCHERZI4CurtinIND00—I was surprised that the honourable member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) decided to introduce some partisan considerations into the debate on this bill. You would remember, and I certainly do, the matter of a cheque in the run up to an election from a firm called Harris Daishowa and the resignation of the relevant minister after that election, although he was re-elected, before the parliament could convene. The honourable gentleman who was re-elected and who resigned was not prepared to come into the parliament to give the reasons that were given publicly for that particular episode. The political parties are, of course, arguing out of their own self interest; at least, that is the example of the first two speakers.The honourable Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) said, in his second reading speech, that the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 introduces a variety of amendments, including a number of technical ones, arising from some of the recommendations contained in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters about the conduct of the 1996 federal election. The committee handed down that report on 16 June 1997 and, other than the introduction of this bill, there has been absolutely no response to that report.With that in mind I made written inquiries to the government on 22 January this year, drawing attention to the fact that the three-month period within which a government response to a report is required had well and truly expired and also inquiring as to when the government expected to respond to the report. I did get a letter in response from the honourable Senator Nick Minchin, Special Minister of State, who advised me:I am aware of the Government's commitment to respond to reports of Parliamentary Committees within 3 months of them being tabled. However, this particular Report contains 73 recommendations and a number of these have required extensive consultation with some Government agencies to allow work on the Response to proceed. The Government expects to table its Response in the Autumn Sitting of the Parliament.So far so good. I understand the problems confronting the government. The minister went on to say, in his letter:Although the Response is yet to be tabled, 22 of the Report recommendations are included in the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997, introduced into the House of Representatives on 1 December 1997.I would have thought that a government would have moved heaven and earth to have a response to a report dealing with the very matters which either are or should have been dealt with in this bill.More significantly, one recommendation of the joint standing committee's report is that this bill does not implement the report's recommendation 62. The recommendation is not technical but rather is a substantive proposal in relation to the equity of treatment of candidates in federal elections. Recommendation 62 says:That section 78 of the of the Income Tax Assessment Act be amended to provide that donations to an independent candidate at a federal or state election are tax deductible, at the same level as donations to registered parties.I would have thought any conscientious government would have addressed itself to that—a matter of justice and fairness. Currently, donations to a registered political party are tax deductible to an annual level of $100. In other words, you can donate $100 every year and that is tax deductible. There is no similar tax treatment provided, though, for supporters of Independent candidates in federal elections who make donations to the campaigns of those candidates. I have an obvious interest in this matter as an Independent member of this House and as a potentially unendorsed and, therefore, Independent candidate in the forthcoming election. I made a submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters during its inquiry, stating:The exclusion for tax purposes of donations to the campaign funds of independent candidates has no basis in equity.I submitted to the committee then:Either all donations should be allowable deductions for tax purposes within limits presently stipulated, or that tax deductibility should be not allowed for any donation.In his second reading speech, amongst other things, the minister said:Other recommendations of that report relating to matters of electoral reform are currently being considered.Before this debate winds up, perhaps the minister, or his representative at the table, can tell the House in his reply whether recommendation 62 is one of those being considered for implementation by the government. It is apparent that this is not the first time that I have raised this matter in this place and sought some form of response from the present government. On 20 October 1997, during question time, I asked the Treasurer (Mr Costello) whether he agrees that an inequity exists in the treatment of tax deductibility of political donations. I then asked the Treasurer whether he concurs with recommendation 62. The response of the honourable gentleman was to concede that I had what he described as a `conceptual' point. I differ with him in that; it is far from conceptual. He said:I suppose you could say at a conceptual level that there should be an equivalence of treatment.Despite the Treasurer's in-principle agreement with the committee's recommendation, the government has yet to take steps to introduce legislation to rectify the inequitable treatment accorded to Independent candidates and their supporters. It is a simple matter to do just that.I raised the matter again on 1 December last year in the course of the consideration in detail stage of the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1997 because the recommendation is essentially a tax matter. I moved an amendment to Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 that, if passed, would have the effect of implementing recommendation 62 of the report of the joint standing committee. The amendment is there and drafted. All the government has to do is emulate, or regurgitate, my words in an amendment to one of its many tax acts which come through the House. Already, we have an omnibus amending bill, Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 7) 1997 , before the House and on the Notice Paper at the moment. It could well have done that. It has had plenty of time.I said at the time that I moved that amendment that I was motivated by my belief that it is a matter of fairness that any donors to my election campaign—provided their donations do not exceed the stipulated $100—should benefit from any tax deductibility. As I said earlier, as the law stands at present, donations to my campaign, and to the campaigns of my Independent colleagues the member for Moore (Mr Filing) and the member for Calare (Mr Andren), cannot be tax deductible. It is a matter of ordinary justice that Independent candidates should be in the same position as their main opponents, or any opponent, who are usually endorsed by the major parties. That is a matter of simple fairness. The present situation is clearly anomalous: a candidate of a party is able to enjoy the opportunity of receiving donations that attract a tax deduction while another candidate standing in the same election—even standing at that election in the same seat—is not.A cynic might observe that the major parties are not particularly concerned about the tax deductibility of donations to the campaigns of Independents because there is nothing in it for them. Against that, the Treasurer has, at least informally, in answer to my question without notice, agreed with the principle of my case. But the government is apparently in no rush to rectify the inequity. Consequently, unless I or one of the other members without party affiliations presses the case, it is likely that, although it is fair and just and is recommended by a joint committee of the parliament, it will never see the light of day in this place—and certainly not before the next election. To adopt the committee's recommendation would confer a benefit on taxpayers without, in my view, imposing much of a burden on the revenue. But, even if it is a burden, the proposed benefit is one that should then be shared by taxpayers across the political spectrum regardless of loyalties to a particular candidate or candidates.In moving my amendment to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 6) 1997 on 1 December of that year, I proposed that the tax deductibility allowance in the case of Independent candidates be very stringent and limited in ways that even the current benefit for candidates from parties is not. I proposed that the deduction apply only to donations within a certain period so that it could not be construed, or even suggested, that some personal advantage might accrue to an individual Independent candidate. My proposition is fair and straightforward, and I have the weight of argument in my favour. Never mind the technical amendments introduced by this bill. I ask the minister: is the government prepared to do the fair and just thing and introduce a government amendment to implement recommendation 62 of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters? 22:00:001356Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I also rise today to support the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 . I think everybody agrees that this bill is a series of technical amendments that are not contentious, and everybody should be supporting it. Really, it is a bill that fixes up quite a number of matters in the Electoral Act that were not addressed during the many years of Labor government. Even the 1993 report by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters made a number of recommendations, none of which were really implemented. It has taken this government to introduce this bill with amendments not only from the 1993 report but also from the redistribution report and the 1996 report—and I was the chairman of the joint standing committee that brought the 1996 report down.Before making a few comments in relation to some aspects of the bill, I would comment on the quite disgraceful digression by the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) in his contribution. He went way off what this bill is about and made various accusations and comments about political donations. He was throwing a bit of dirt around in the typical ALP fashion—if you throw a bit around, hopefully it will stick. I thought it was a bit tough, considering that he admitted that nothing had been done incorrectly, nobody had broken the law, but he still proposed to throw a bit of dirt around.It was particularly tough coming from the member for Canberra, who I am sure had quite a hand in that questionable deal that was done a few years ago between the then ALP government and the Australian Labor Party in their rental deal on Centenary House—the deal where the rental started immediately the deal was done, before the bricks and mortar went up, and there was an automatic increase every year. That he should stand around here, talking about political donations, is pretty good when you can disclose, basically, money from the Australian taxpayer increasing at about the rate of nine or 10 per cent inflation—I think was the deal they did at the time—as well as having inflation at that time running at about three or four per cent. So it is pretty rough for the member for Canberra to come in here and piously talk about political funding, when he had his hands all over that deal which locked the Australian taxpayer into a very high rent for a very long period of time—all for the benefit of the ALP.But I come back to the bill. Because of the time involved tonight, I will restrict my comments to aspects relating to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters on the 1996 election, the committee of which, as I have said, I was the chairman. Something like 22 recommendations out of the 70-odd recommendations in that report have been included in this particular bill. They are all technical, but I think a couple really need to be spoken about in a bit more detail because they are quite relevant and are things that really should have been done some time ago.Recommendations 13 and 14 of that report are included in this bill; these relate to the Langer aspects. You may remember from the 1996 election the Albert Langer episode. He ended up in gaol as a result of advertisements he was running on how people should vote. What he was out to do, basically, was to have people put the major parties last and exhaust their voting preferences. There was quite an outcry about that particular incident. I think the Australia Electoral Commission copped flak, and everybody copped flak, at the fact that this chap ended up in gaol.For that particular part of the report, we took a variety of evidence and, at the end of the day, two recommendations were included in the report. The first was that section 329A of the Electoral Act be repealed, and that was the part of the act under which Albert Langer was prosecuted. But, in addition, to get over the problem that was being created by Albert Langer, there was a further recommendation, recommendation 14, which says that section 240 of the Electoral Act, which provides for full preferential voting in House of Representatives elections, be amended to include the words `consecutive numbers without the repetition of any number'.Basically, that recommendation, which has been picked up as an amendment in this bill, overcomes the problem that was being put forward with Albert Langer advocating a 1,2,3,3,3, et cetera, for a ballot paper—which was not clear in the rest of the Electoral Act. With this particular change, if people voted in that fashion it would be an informal vote; whereas previously that vote would be exhausted. So I think those two recommendations are vitally important.Also included in this particular bill is recommendation 28, which reads that the Electoral Act be amended `to enable presiding officers to take ballot papers immediately outside a polling place to electors who, because of physical incapacity, cannot enter the polling place; scrutineers should be given the opportunity to observe this process'. I think that aspect is included in some state acts already where a person, because of their physical nature, is just not capable of getting in, or it would be a possibly painful experience to get right into the polling station. I have seen it work in another state where the legislation did allow it. It was quite appropriate for the particular person: they were in a car, and the presiding officer was able to take the ballot paper to the person in the car, with scrutineers from either side to watch the process. So I think that is a fair and reasonable amendment to be included.Recommendation 40 from the 1996 report is:that section 170(3) of the Electoral Act be amended to increase the deposit for nomination from $250 to $350 for the House of Representatives, and from $500 to $700 for the Senate.That is the deposit which is refundable if a certain percentage of the vote is gained. There can be lots of debate about whether it is fair to increase the deposit and what should it be increased to, but I think it is only reasonable to have a reasonable deposit—something that is applicable to the day—for elections because, if it is too small, you will get an incredible number of people nominating for the hell of it rather than for any really serious reason, and that has been seen a number of times.The overriding aspect as to why we made that recommendation in that committee was that the actual amount has not changed since 1983. I know that under the former Labor government inflation was running very high; we have had very low inflation under the current government in the last couple of years, so if we had the low inflation rate through that period it would be a different story. But we did have quite high inflation during many of those years of the former Labor government from 1983, so I think an increase from $250 to $350 for the House of Representatives is not unreasonable and from $500 to $700 for the Senate is equally so.Recommendation 41 is:that section 166(1)(b)(i) of the Electoral Act be amended so that the number of signatures required in support of a nomination by a candidate not endorsed by a registered political party is increased from six to 50.Currently, if you are not part of a political party, you can just go out and get six signatures and nominate. Given that a political party has to demonstrate before it can be registered a membership of at least 500, we felt that it was not unreasonable to increase the number of signatures for a person not endorsed by a political party from six to 50. Quite frankly, if they cannot get 50 signatures in a federal electorate, they are probably not standing a very high chance of even getting their deposit back, let alone being in the final two of the count.Recommendation 58 of the 1996 report is:that section 309 of the Electoral Act be amended so that registered political parties are not required to lodge returns of electoral expenditure.Some people might see that recommendation and say we are going to stop political parties declaring what they have earned. That is not the case at all. Currently, political parties are basically doing it twice: every year they have to provide returns—very detailed in all sorts of categories—on income and expenditure and they also have to lodge a return after each election. Both of the major political parties argued that that was really doubling the work for them and that it was not really proving anything—at the end of the day the information was still being provided—and I think people would agree that is a reasonable amendment to make. The actual annual accounts and returns have to be done—the information has to be provided—but doing it twice does not make a great deal of sense.They are some of the key technical amendments that were recommended in the 1996 report that have been included in this bill and, as I said, I will limit my comments to those particular ones, but other recommendations from the 1993 report and from the report on the redistribution have been included. All of the recommendations make for a far better Electoral Act. The integrity of the electoral system has to be kept at an absolute optimum, and the amendments that are proposed within this bill do that. I support it very strongly.22:11:001358Zammit, Paul, MPMr ZAMMITZK6LoweIND00—I just want to make a few passing comments in regard to this non-controversial piece of legislation, the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997. Our society is constantly changing and to meet the needs of this ever-changing society the function and role of bureaucracies and organisations—government and non-government—need to be constantly reviewed and revised.In 1994 the former Australian Electoral Office was superseded by the Australian Electoral Commission, its role being to provide the Australian people with an independent electoral service which not only meets the needs of the people but also encourages them to understand and participate in the electoral process—in other words, to be an active and participatory member of our democratic society. As with other facets of our democratic society, the AEC has had to move with the times. Over the past two decades a number of reviews have been undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and a number of amendments based on committee recommendations have already been introduced.The Electoral and Referendum Bill 1997 includes further amendments arising from the recommendations of two Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters reports: on electoral redistribution, tabled in December 1995, and on the conduct of the 1996 federal election, tabled in June 1997. As I said earlier, I would like to comment briefly on three of the proposed amendments. The first concerns recommendation 52 of the 1997 report, which advocates that section 91 of the Electoral Act be amended so that greater detail on individual persons on the electoral roll—that is, their age, gender and salutation—could be made available to senators, members and registered political parties. It was also recommended that this same data could be made available for use in approved medical research and public health screening surveys.Whilst I would be among the first to admit that gender details, in particular, would make my job as a federal politician much easier when sending out letters to new electors in my area, I am, nonetheless, concerned over privacy issues. What we do not want in Australia is a move towards an Orwellian-type society and, I am afraid to say, we are heading in that direction more and more as time goes on with the greater use of technology.Proposed section 94A would allow people who are working overseas for a period of less than six years and who would ordinarily be eligible to be on the electoral roll to enrol whilst residing overseas. In today's world, work commitments can often mean that Australians are overseas for extended periods of time but at the same time many, of course, want their vote to count at election time.The third amendment I want to speak to is the repeal of subsection 329(3) of the principal act. This particular section of the act received considerable media coverage at the last federal election, when Albert Langer advocated a vote other than the full preferential system of voting provided for in section 240 of the principal act, and he was subsequently gaoled for contempt of court.The result of this amendment is that optional preferential voting will still be valid and people will now be able to lobby others to vote in a similar fashion. It is perhaps an interesting note on our democratic participation in Australia and the very nature of our democratic society when the actions of one person can ultimately lead to a change in electoral legislation. This is not a very controversial bill, so I have restricted my comments to just three amendments. I very strongly support the amendments.22:15:001359Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—Australia's first federal election was held in March 1901. In fact, it was really six separate elections held at more or less the same time and conducted under the widely diverse laws governing lower house elections in each of the states. Some states granted universal franchise; other states restricted eligibility for voters on the grounds of race, sex and property ownership. Some states adopted statewide voting for the House of Representatives; others opted for single member constituencies. In fact, voluntary voting was one of the few features common across the nation, but it did not survive very long. It was decided eventually that compulsory voting would be adopted, which is the system that has served the Australian democracy very well since.Voting systems and determinants of voter eligibility were standardised in the Commonwealth electoral and franchise acts of 1902. In 1918 preferential voting was established. Enrolment was made compulsory in 1911, and voting was made compulsory in 1924, following low turnouts that averaged around 64 per cent. I note that since 1925 turnout has never fallen below 90 per cent. There has been a series of changes since then. The system of electing the Senate was changed in 1948 to proportional representation. In 1973 the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18. Also witnessed in 1983 was a further raft of changes, including above-the-line voting for the Senate.The important thing is that the result of this evolutionary process is an electoral system which is exceptional in terms of its inclusiveness, its integrity and its fairness. It has to be admitted that this does not mean that the system is perfect. The bottom line is that, while there is always room for reform and improvement, these are not insignificant achievements and they should not be overlooked.Through the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the parliament provides a mechanism for considering and recommending reforms and improvements. The bill before the House today is the result of the committee's inquiries. From these have flowed a number of significant recommendations for change to Australia's electoral laws, some of which, including the recommendation for compulsory voting, would fundamentally alter Australia's electoral system. This bill, however, deals essentially with only the technical and comparatively less controversial issues raised in the committee's report. Notwithstanding this, the bill covers a broad range of issues and raises some important questions. I will deal with only four or five of these.The first relates to redistributions. The redistribution provision in the bill will implement three major changes in the redistribution process. The first is that the initial stage of the process—the determination of state and territory entitlements to House of Representatives seats—will fall due in the 13th rather than the 10th month after the meeting of the newly elected House of Representatives. The rationale for this change is comparatively straightforward. Since entitlements are determined on the basis of current rather than projected population figures, the delay of three months means that the figures used to determine the number of seats to which each state and territory is entitled to at an election will be one calendar quarter closer to the eventual election date. The Australian Electoral Commission has advised that moving the determination to the 13th month should not unduly affect the redistribution timetable or, just as importantly in some senses, subsequent political timetables. This appears to be a logical and workable improvement.The second change in the redistribution process proposed by the bill relates to the allowable variation between the enrolment numbers in any given division and the statewide average. The bill proposes to extend the degree of tolerance between divisional enrolments and the statewide average to 3.5 per cent 3½ years after the redistribution so as to give greater flexibility to redistribution committees to apply the qualitative criteria while maintaining the primacy of numerical considerations.The third major change to the redistribution process proposed by the bill relates to the consideration given by redistribution committees to the various qualitative criteria. Currently under section 66(3) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, the redistribution committee must give due consideration to the division's community of interests, the means of communication and travel, physical features and existing boundaries. The bill proposes that existing electoral boundaries be made subordinate to other qualitative criteria.I am unsure that this constitutes a major advance in electoral legislation. Existing boundaries are only one of the four criteria. The fact is that, in so far as past redistributions have been valid and well based, the existing boundaries are the sum of the redistribution committee's taking into account community of interests, means of communication and travel, physical features and area.Axiomatically, existing boundaries should be disturbed as little as possible other than to meet the numerical imperatives or to address past debatable decisions made by the committees. Of course, these are always few and far between. It also needs to be said that the various establishments of boundaries create new communities of interest as groups within the electorate organise themselves in accordance with the confines of their single member constituency.As I began by saying, I am not sure what this amendment contributes and I do wish to emphasise that redistribution committees would be wrong to see in this amendment a rationale for writing down too far the significance of existing boundaries, either as criteria themselves or as a component of the critical definition of community of interests.The bill also proposes a couple of sensitive changes to the procedures for candidates nominating for House of Representatives and Senate elections. The nomination deposit will increase from $250 to $350 in the House of Representatives and by an analogous sum in the Senate. Although this is the first increase in 15 years and is significantly less in percentage terms than inflation over the period, there is still a sense in which financial impost is being placed on the exercise of democratic rights. The change will, however, make some of those with no real chance of being elected think more carefully about nominating, and I think this is an important consideration.In a similar vein is the proposal to increase the number of signatures required in support of the nomination of a candidate not endorsed by a registered political party, from six to 50. I would note in passing, however, that, while the increase in nomination deposits was less than the inflation rate, the increase in signatures required is just a tiny bit in excess of population growth.The bill also contains a large number of provisions regulating activities during an election campaign and the conduct of the election itself. Most of these are essentially small procedural amendments, but there are a couple of more important and high profile changes responding to the issues raised during the 1996 election by the imprisonment of Mr Albert Langer. This has been canvassed by other speakers in this debate, and I think canvassed very effectively. I believe the bill does address the issues raised by the Langer case.The consequence of the changes, however, is that a not insignificant number of voters will have their votes ruled invalid as a result of honest mistakes made in filling out the ballot papers. The effective disenfranchisement of voters, no matter what the rationale, is something which needs to be very carefully monitored, and I believe that the commission intends to do that, but I would like to see the results of that monitoring in due course.The bill introduces a number of changes to Australia's electoral legislation, but it is important that these changes be kept in perspective. They are not made to repair a system which is full of holes, but rather they are designed to improve a system which is amongst the very best in the world in terms of its fairness, its inclusiveness and its integrity. They are part of an ongoing process of evaluation, reform and improvement which goes back to the very early days of Federation, and which will continue so long as we continue to strive to achieve the elusive perfect electoral system.In this respect I do want to compliment the government for moving on some amendments about postal vote applications which I think are very important and will facilitate the efficacy of voting, particularly on the part of more elderly Australians, who are a very important part of the political system. I commend the government on these amendments.I believe the fundamentals of the system are right. What is required is finetuning. This bill contributes to that and I commend the bill to the House.22:26:001361Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—Given the hour and the enormous crowd in the gallery, I will keep my comments on the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 brief. I appreciate the presence of such luminaries as the member for Kooyong (Mr Georgiou), who has an abiding interest in matters of this nature. I see we have another member of the state secretaries club present in the chamber. I will be brief and I will conclude my comments tonight in order to assist the bill going through the House. The bill, as has been said, is essentially a number of minor machinery matters which are a necessary part of the continuing evolution of the system. As the previous speaker said, it is a system we can all be proud of. Just on that point, I am at a loss therefore to understand some of the membership of the current Electoral Matters Committee with respect to their predilection for major changes to the system on the question of voluntary voting. I think that is shared by some members on both sides of the House.HM5GEORGIOUMr Georgiou—It is not the subject of this bill.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—It is not the subject of the bill, as I have been reminded. The fact is that we are talking minor amendments here but important ones. The Langer case has been covered by a number of previous speakers, so I will not go into that other than to say that I think what has been proposed will remedy the matter. But we should, as was said earlier, monitor the process in order to see whether it has in fact worked post the next election.A number of changes relate to the question of the redistribution system. As one who has had his seat abolished, I have an enormous grudge against the redistribution system in this country. It is something that has caused me a great deal of pain. I once said that, if you really do not like someone in the political system, the best thing to do is to get them to prepare a redistribution committee submission, because if they are not mad before they start doing it they will be mad after they have completed it. The changes that have been proposed with respect to that I think make sense. Relating to the question of a further quarter's ABS data being available around the matter of whether distributions should in fact be triggered, I think that is sensible. It means that the information that is being utilised in order to make a decision about whether a redistribution is required is more up to date and accurate, and that is to be commended.On the question of existing boundaries as part of the criteria and making that subordinate to the other criteria such as community of interests, communications, travel and physical features, it is a never-ending battle to understand those criteria in terms of their operation. I can often recall looking at a range of different aspects of a proposed set of maps as produced by a redistribution committee and having had a situation where on different occasions different criteria have been utilised to make a point on the same area. I recall, as I think the member for Kooyong does, the argument on the seat of Flinders in Victoria at the redistribution before last, where it was said it was in effect a silly seat which should not go around Westernport Bay and this redistribution would fix it. The following redistribution reinstigated it. The fact of the matter is that it did not show a lot of rhyme and reason then and it still does not now, so I will look with interest to see how that criterion will in fact operate. I have my doubts as to whether in fact we will see a lot more sense come to the process, but I do think that it is a difficult job and it is not a job that I would wish to have to do myself. I wish the commission all the very best with future redistributions and hope that they will one day shine upon me as they have not done in the past.HM5GEORGIOUMr Georgiou—But you're complaining.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—I have survived, I guess.5V5SMITHMr Stephen Smith—Have you declared an interest?VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—I have an interest in this, yes. But, as to whether I have an abiding interest of the intensity of others that might be mentioned today, that is in fact not the case.The fact is that the legislation, as part of that evolution process, is an important part of developing a system which is one of the best in the world. It is a system which is often pointed to overseas, and officers from this country are often used overseas to assist in electoral processes. It is something we should all be proud of and it is something that we should look forward to in the future. I commend the bill to the House and wish it a very speedy passage as we approach the adjournment debate.Adjournment136210000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.136222:30:001362Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—Tonight I want to talk about country doctors. Tasmania is suffering from both the state and federal governments not being able to get their acts together with expenditure on health. The result of this is that services are being closed and nothing is being done to replace those services. This is leaving local people without doctors or medical help for long periods when they were used to 24-hour a day district hospitals.This was the situation recently in St Marys on the east coast of Tasmania when the district hospital closed for good, leaving in its place a nine-to-five medical centre. It had played an important role in the community, particularly with the elderly, and led to locals using the town as their main centre. Now people are concerned that without the hospital not only will the medical services be curtailed but the local economy will suffer. Already shopkeepers have reported a drastic decrease in trade and those that used to do their shopping while visiting the hospital are no longer coming. This is what happens when services are downgraded in the country. People do not have many alternatives and many are being left isolated and forgotten or even have to contemplate moving away. This has already made ghost towns of many communities across Australia.A report compiled recently by the federal government was presented to the federal government's health committee last week, I understand. It included a submission from the Australian Medical Association and the Rural Doctors Association and has a number of recommendations to improve medical work force recruitment and retention schemes for rural and remote areas.A section of the submission has recognised the plight of country doctors who have to work unaided 24 hours a day, seven days a week. If they do not have a hospital and medical facilities handy they have no backup at all. There was a recognition of a need for incentives to keep doctors in country regions.This submission looks at putting a further $250 million and employing an extra 1,000 doctors Australia wide by 2003 towards getting on top of the shortage of rural services. There were also calls for national medical recruitment for rural and remote areas and an urgent evaluation of the health infrastructure. There were some very sensible suggestions in the AMA's paper and the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) should give careful consideration to them. Like all other country services, they cannot be expected to operate in a market situation—there has to be input from government. Doctors are no different. Threats to Medicare are certainly not going to help the situation.I have been in contact constantly with the research going on in rural health and the means by which medical services can be encouraged in rural and remote areas. I think this submission has some worthwhile recommendations. This government should be pursuing them. With the latest debacle at the Premiers Conference, where there was no ability to negotiate better funding for the states' health, only increases the problems for country health generally.All this nonsense about the repayment of the black hole debt only shows that the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) and the Treasurer (Mr Costello) do not care about ordinary Australians. If we have a surplus of $2.5 billion in 1998-99, why can't some of it be used to help shore up the medical systems of Australia. Why can't it help some of my electors get into elective surgery? Why can't we?That $250 million suggested in the submission would make a huge difference to people's lives in the country and it would also give young people from the country areas incentives to train and return to their own districts to practice. It would provide a multiplier effect to country areas and help boost rural economies. I will be interested to see the whole report and see what the profession plans for the future. The government should be releasing it publicly so the community can make its own comments. We need to know what commitment there is to rural and regional people. This government keeps telling us how committed they are. Let us see some evidence of this. This report could be a start. It should be tabled.136322:35:001363Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—On Friday 27 February, it was my pleasure to represent the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Hon. David Kemp MP, at the Liverpool Regional Museum for the launch of the first work for the dole project that serves my electorate of Hughes. This project was conducted by H&H Accredited Training, whose director, Mr Ray Hill, had the benefit of the positive support of Mrs Christine Raszewski, the curator of the museum, in planning a project that would not only be of significant benefit to the local community but also be of practical value to the young participants.They have succeeded admirably. During the course of my time at the Liverpool Regional Museum, I was impressed by the care and interest shown by the director and the curator towards the young volunteers. It was obvious that the young people themselves were enthusiastic, eager and excited about being involved in this project and that they had a great deal of respect and regard for the organisers. One thing of which Mr Ray Hill is justly proud is that all 120 of his work for the dole participants were volunteers in the scheme. The willingness and cooperative spirit of the young volunteers I met that day certainly conveyed a contagious enthusiasm and commitment.The work offered to the volunteers included: historical research; the restoration of Collingwood House, one of Liverpool's significant heritage buildings; the renovation of historical machinery; landscape gardening; and bush regeneration. Also included in the project was the establishment of a coffee shop for the museum, which included the preparation and presentation of food and beverages. After the formalities were observed, I and the other guests, including representatives from the Liverpool Council Library, enjoyed morning tea on the veranda that had been prepared and served by the project participants.The cottage gardens around the museum's courtyard were a riot of colour and the neat edges and well weeded beds gave proof to recent attention by those volunteers who chose landscape gardening as their part of the project. However, I think the most satisfying moment came that morning from a speech given by one of the young volunteers, 20-year-old Peter Vodogaz of Eagle Vale. I would like to share his personal experience of the work for the dole scheme. He said:Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Peter. I am a volunteer for a work for the dole scheme and I am currently doing a research project at the Liverpool Regional Museum. The work for the dole scheme is a good initiative begun by the Federal Government. Its aim has been to give the unemployed a chance to give back to the community and to help the community. In essence, it is a community based project. It is beneficial to the community as it is to the volunteer. I know I get a great sense of satisfaction when I finish a project to the best of my ability.I have enjoyed the research project so far. Joining the scheme has been worthwhile because I have met new people, acquired new skills and been kept busy doing a job I've always wanted to experience.In my opinion, the work for the dole scheme is a monumental achievement that benefits all involved, as well as the volunteer. I have gained confidence and acquired new skills that hopefully will enhance my prospects in finding a job.I attended a job interview on Wednesday and the panel of six people asked me what I had been doing while I was looking for a job. I replied that I was attending a work for the dole scheme at Liverpool . . . I immediately saw an interest that they expressed to find out more about the scheme. Hopefully, that will help me. The work for the dole project gave me a sense of purpose, relieved my boredom and took my parents off my back. I hope that this scheme expands, because it is a great project that works.I wish to close my speech in saying thank you to the main sponsors H&H Accredited Training for giving me the opportunity to work on this project and making the scheme possible.The honesty and freshness of Peter's words this morning also conveyed a sense of personal pride and a growing self-confidence as this young man was finding his place in the adult world. He was a delight to talk to, and he was positive about his future. He was also concerned that other young people should get a similar chance. He said to me that he hopes the government will keep the scheme going for unemployed young people in his area. Not only does it bring new skills; more importantly, it brings self-esteem, confidence and self-respect. It also brings older members of the community to regard more highly and respect these young people.I am personally grateful that the government has provided for a further 25,000 in the work for the dole scheme in 1998-99. It will then spread the growing sense of self-esteem and confidence for many more young people and allow them to take their place amongst their fellow Australians with pride.136422:39:001364Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I have received a letter from Messrs Deacons Graham and James acting for Mr Ted Baillieu. They have drawn my attention to a question I asked of the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) in the House of Representatives on 2 March 1998. In that question I asked:My question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it follows the answer that was previously given. Is the Prime Minister aware that his Minister for the Environment has acknowledged personally intervening in Victorian funding applications, in a supposedly independent funding appraisal process, to reinstate three rejected applications and, in doing so, approved $52,000 for fencing a single rural property? Is the Prime Minister aware that the successful applicant in that case, given $52,000 of taxpayers' money, is actually a private pastoral company owned by the Baillieu family—the family of Ted Baillieu, former president of the Victorian Liberal Party? How can the Prime Minister condone this outrageous case of ministerial intervention which resulted in the reinstatement and funding of a Natural Heritage Trust project for the benefit of the Liberal Party faithful?Messrs Deacons Graham and James advise that the company in question was and is owned by `Mr Anthony Baillieu, our client's second cousin and his family'. I accept that. Mr Ted Baillieu, by his solicitor, also asks me to accept that he had nothing to do with the property in question or its owner and knew nothing of the application to the trust, and that the grant was made without his influence. I have never suggested otherwise, and I express my regret if Mr Ted Baillieu thought that I did.All my criticism of the allocation of funding under the Natural Heritage Trust has been directed towards the bias in the way in which the fund has been distributed by the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson). I have alleged no impropriety on behalf of any applicant. But the opposition, however, has a mountain of evidence of abuse of process regarding the funding grants under the Natural Heritage Trust by these ministers and still has legitimate questions about the way in which the government is prepared to squander taxpayers' money.No-one should forget that this was a dividend that was intended to come from the sale of Telstra, which every Australian owned and which the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) promised to be an additional investment over and above recurrent budget funding in capital and much needed environmental projects. The community had only one bite at that cherry, and the opposition has an obligation to make the government accountable for every cent of it.Members might recall that the opposition warned from the beginning that the government was likely to ensure that the Natural Heritage Trust became a Liberal Party slush fund. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Nine dollars out of every $10 spent by the trust attributable to federal electorates went to coalition seats. The Prime Minister responds with a simplistic explanation and says why would anyone be surprised, as the environmental problems are in rural and regional Australia and the coalition holds most of those seats.But when looking at the average allocation per seat in rural and regional Australia—in other words, when we compare apples with apples—we still find a massive bias in favour of coalition seats. For example, coalition held regional seats received five times the average allocation for Labor held regional seats. Given that the coalition holds 10 provincial seats and the ALP holds eight, how does Mr Howard seriously expect anyone not to suspect bias?We also still remain suspicious of a Minister for the Environment who refuses to provide satisfactory answers to legitimate questions. He ducks and weaves and rants, but he will not answer those questions. We still have outstanding FOI requests which have not been responded to. We still do not know why, after the exhaustive so-called expert and independent multi-tiered appraisal and recommendation process, Senator Hill asked Senator Crane, a Liberal senator, to advise him on funding projects in that senator's home state and Mr Billson, the Liberal member for Dunkley, was flown to South Australia to advise Senator Hill on the funding grants for Mr Billson's home state of Victoria. We know that Mr Billson was still boasting about ensuring that a late and out of time application from his own electorate was considered.1K6BILLSONMr Billson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. That grotesque assertion from the so-called gentleman at the box is factually incorrect. I ask him to withdraw it.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—That is not a point of order.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—We know that there has been an abuse by funds being removed from what was supposedly capital expenditure for recurrent purposes. We know there has been cost shifting within the fund—ordinary expenditures of government funded out of the Natural Heritage Trust. We know that the process has been corrupted by the way in which the government has abused the fund. (Time expired)136622:44:001366Reid, Bruce, MPMr REIDVT4BendigoLP10—I want to make some comments with respect to the situation in Asia at this time. I am indebted to Austrade's Mr Michael Crawford for the information I will relate to the House. I want to stress to the House how important it is not to group all of our Asian neighbours into a single category. Asia is made up of many countries, and they are very different—different cultures, different peoples and certainly very different economies. I want to mention Australia's trade position in respect of some of those countries. It is well worth noting, for example, the merchandise exports to East Asian countries over two separate six-month periods, from July 1996 to January 1997 and during the period July 1997 to January 1998—particularly important in respect of a number of our major trading partners. The Australian merchandise exports to some of these countries are very significant during those two periods.In the PRC, for example, total exports during the July 1996-97 period were $1,962 million and in the corresponding period from July 1997 to January 1998 they were $2,365 million, an improvement of 20.5 per cent. There has been a quite remarkable leap in Hong Kong where there has been a massive increase in total exports of Australian merchandise products to Hong Kong—a 48.5 per cent improvement. For Indonesia, about which we are hearing so much of the difficulties that they are having with their currency and their economy, the change over that same corresponding six-month period was 1.6 per cent.Let us look at our major trading nations. Japan had a massive increase from $8,932 million to $10,525 million—a change of $1,593 million or a 17.8 per cent improvement. Looking down through a whole range of them, the Philippines had a 17.6 per cent improvement, Singapore a 17 per cent improvement, Taiwan a 22.1 per cent improvement and, of the remaining ones, Korea was down 11.5 per cent, Thailand down 9.2 per cent and Malaysia down 0.8 per cent. The overall change, quoting all of those countries—China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan and Thailand—was an overall 12 per cent improvement in our trade with those countries and the Australian merchandise exports have made a significant thrust forward into those countries.I want to compliment the fine work being done, particularly by the Minister for Trade, the Hon. Tim Fischer, and his parliamentary secretary, Senator David Brownhill, and also our Austrade officials throughout our neighbouring Asian countries, both in those countries and here in Australia. They are certainly making a major thrust into South-East Asia, particularly those countries I have mentioned. The performance of Australia's trading situation in respect of Australian merchandise exports is very favourable and improving all the while. The major thrust of this government into improving our export relationship with all of those South-East Asian countries is to be commended.136622:49:001366Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I wish to return tonight to something I raised in the House back on 27 February last year, and that is incidents on the Thai-Burmese border. On Wednesday, 11 March a refugee camp with refugees of Karen ethnicity was attacked by Burmese forces. The name of the camp is the Huay Kalok refugee camp. This has special moment for me and also for the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), who is in the chamber tonight, because back in September 1995 I, as the leader of a parliamentary delegation and the honourable member for Corangamite, as the deputy leader, visited this camp.Regrettably, at the time that I first heard of reports this year, I was unsure that yet again it was this particular camp, but on Saturday, 21 March in the Age there was quite a good article about the incident. In that incident the head of the camp is quoted—and the head of the camp is a rather remarkable woman, Mary O. In the report of the delegation we refer to Mary O, and we had this to say about her:Wangka camp is headed by Mary O who was a major in the Karen Army. She is a dynamic and impressive person who works tirelessly for the welfare of her people, ensuring the camp is well organised and that there are at least very basic facilities, like schools, a clinic and running water.This is a refugee camp of bamboo buildings. It is surrounded by rice paddies. At the time of the attack this year, many of the people living in the camp fled into those rice paddies. Unfortunately, there were a number who were injured and now are hospitalised. Last year when I rose to speak about this there had been an earlier attack in January of that year. These people are already living a very hard existence. In our report we made mention that many of the children who lived in those camps had been born into those camps and actually had fulfilled their primary and secondary education in the schools in those camps. We pay tribute to the way in which the Karen people had organised themselves within the camps and we also pay tribute to the desire that the Karen people have simply to return to Burma to live in peace. We refer to the camp as the Wangka camp only because that is the nearest Burmese village across the border and the people who lived in the camp preferred to refer to it in that way. In the report in the Age Mary O has this to say:We have to suffer, but our morale has been quite good up to now . . . If there was genuine peace, we would return home tonight, we would not wait until tomorrow.When the delegation visited the camp, one of the most moving moments of the whole delegation was when Mary O on our departure said, `Come back and visit us in Burma.' I know that it is very difficult to make comment about the way in which another country deals with a situation like this. I am full of praise for the efforts of the Thai officials and the way in which they have cooperated in the running of the camp. There are stories that part of the problem is the trafficking of forestry products from Burma into Thailand and the protection, therefore, of the border—and the involvement perhaps of Thai army officials.At the time of the incidents last year, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Downer) in an answer to a question on 3 March said that he would be asking our officials in Bangkok to speak to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Thailand to confirm that it was not the case that the Thai military was involved in any of the incidents and that it was not the wish of the Thai officials that the Karen people should be repatriated against their will. I hope that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will ensure that there is continuing support of the aid projects that are carried out not only in this particular camp but also in a number of the camps along the Thai-Burmese border by an organisation known as the Burmese Border Consortium and organisations such as Medecins Sans Frontieres.I believe that one of the ways in which Australia can establish its credibility and establish its credentials within the region is by ensuring that it continues to play an active part in trying to see that these people are able to resume their proper place—that is, living in Burma. I know that the UNHRC are perhaps going to be invited to be involved. I hope that that is the case because that has been one of the stumbling blocks. These people are referred to as displaced people and not as refugees because the UNHRC has not yet any official status. (Time expired)136722:54:001367Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Tonight I want to speak about a recent development in Australia's stock markets, and that is the situation which has occurred in the last six months where four out of 10 adult Australians now participate in the Australian stock market. Twenty-nine per cent of adults now directly own shares. Only the United States has a higher level of participation. High levels of domestic ownership contribute to two goals that this government has: one, the goal of making Australia the No. 2 financial centre after Tokyo in the Asia-Pacific region and, also, John Howard's stated goal of making Australia one of the great share owning democracies in the world, with more stakeholders in Australian capital than ever before.I do not know how the Labor Party feel about this development. How will they respond to this development? It looks like this is the sort of development which would have Labor marching in the opposite direction. How do they feel about having a nation of mini-capitalists? When you look at where the fastest growth is occurring, it is occurring amongst people aged 25 to 34 on average incomes and in regional areas more than in city areas.People have often said that the Australian Labor Party and Liberal and National parties are like the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Australian politics, that there is no real difference between the coalition and the ALP, but on the issue of state ownership of government business enterprises you could not be further from the truth because this is an area that really does still distinguish the Labor Party from the coalition. It was at the 1921 ALP conference that the party objective—the socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange—was adopted by Labor. If you look around the world, in Britain Tony Blair removed the socialist clause from British Labour's platform. The ALP is unable or unwilling to do the same. Why won't Kim Beazley remove the socialist clause from the ALP? Do the Labor Party still hold this up as a party objective? Do the Labor Party believe that the principle of state common ownership of Telstra is so important that they will be prepared to renationalise the one-third that was privatised last year? I would like to see that as a Labor Party motion at a future Labor Party conference.There are few Communist governments left in power around the world. In 1959 when Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba he seized the assets of the ITT Corporation, which operated Cuba's phone system. Thirty-five years later, in 1994, Cuban telecommunications were partially privatised by selling 49 per cent to Italian and Mexican phone companies. In that period, Cuba went from having 400 long distance phone calls per day to 60,000 calls per day. Mr Speaker, you might remember that, at the end of the Cold War when the Gulf War coalition was put together, the Soviet Union, for the first time in that 40 years, agreed with the United States and China did not oppose, and there were still the last remaining isolated, recalcitrant states which opposed the American led coalition attack on Iraq. They were states like North Korea, Cuba, Yemen and Albania.It is very interesting to see that Albania, one of the most isolated Communist nations in the world, began the road to privatisation in 1995. In South Africa, the ANC government, which contains members of the South African Communist Party, privatised 30 per cent of Telkom—their national carrier—in 1997. So around the world we have this extraordinary situation where the members of the internationale—the international grouping of Communist Party members—are actually less wedded to common state ownership of enterprises than the ALP and the Australian Democrats. On this issue, the ALP and the Australian Democrats are more left wing than Fidel Castro, they are more left wing than the South African Communist Party and they are more left wing than Albania.By selling the remaining two-thirds of Telstra, we can reduce the interest bill on the debt which Labor left us by $3 billion per year forever. Taking into account the loss of the Telstra dividend, this would provide $1.5 billion to $2 billion each and every year to spend on areas like the environment, health or aged care. Selling Telstra would lead to lower costs and make it more commercial in operation. Of course you need guarantees. You need guarantees on foreign investment—limiting foreign investment to 35 per cent and five per cent for any foreign carrier. Maintaining untimed local and data calls is very important for the Internet. It is also important to maintain price capping for rural users and maintain standard telephone services for all Australians. (Time expired)136822:59:001368Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—This evening, in the context of the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1997 which the House currently has before it, I would like to take the opportunity of paying tribute to a very fine Commonwealth public officer who has recently announced his retirement, and that is Mr Barry Young, who was the Chief Commonwealth Electoral Officer for Western Australia. My contact with Mr Young has been as state secretary of the Western Australian branch of the Australian Labor Party. My contact with him was in the usual way, as reflected by the bill before the House, both as far as elections were concerned and redistributions. Obviously, as the member for Perth I have also had contact with him in the various elections when I have stood as candidate for Perth and for redistributions.Over those years and through the conduct of a number of elections and redistributions, Mr Young has always struck me as being a person of very great integrity, a man of very great decency, professional and impartial—the sort of fine upstanding Commonwealth electoral officer that I think the Commonwealth can pride itself on. His retirement is in part as a result of a recent family tragedy which has seen his family being the subject of great sympathy throughout the state of Western Australia. I take this opportunity on behalf of my Western Australian colleagues of wishing Mr Young all the best for his retirement.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:001369House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices1369The following notices were given:Mr Leo McLeay to move—That this House calls on the Government to make closed captioning compulsory on all prime time programs and all news progams.Mr Laurie Ferguson to move—That this House:(1) expresses dismay at the Government's mismanagement of the military medals system;(2) notes its failure to honour solemn undertakings made by the then shadow Minister for Defence, Science and Personnel on 27 September 1995 that a Coalition government would (a) recognise additional tours of duty in Vietnam, (b) issue long service medals to officers and instructors of cadets, (c) review the eligibility criteria for the Defence Medal, (d) investigate the extension of eligibility for the Vietnam Logistic and Support Medal and (e) ensure that any genuine anomalies brought to its attention were rectified;(3) notes that the Minister for Defence Industry, Science and Personnel has made a series of contradictory announcements on the issue of a distinctly Australian medal for service between 1945 and 1975; (4) notes that naval veterans who served in the Malayan Emergency have not been adequately recognised for their warlike service and have been misled about the nature of advice received from UK military authorities;(5) reminds the Minister of her undertaking that veterans would be awarded the new Australian Active Service Medal 1945-75 by Anzac Day 1998; and(6) requests the Prime Minister to ensure that Vietnam veterans who were recommended for an imperial medal for gallantry are awarded the new Australia Medal for Gallantry without regard to their rank.Mr Andrew to move—That the Criminal Code Amendment Bill 1997 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration.Mr Fahey to move—That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Development of the Eastern Region Operations Centre at RAAF Base Williamtown, NSW.Mr Fahey to move—That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Redevelopment of facilities at RAAF Base Amberley, Qld.Documents1369The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 23 March 1998:Aged Care Act—Principles—1997—Allocation Amendment (No.1).Approved Provider Amendment (No.1).Flexible Care Subsidy Amendment (No. 1).User Rights Amendment (Nos. 6 and 7).1998—Residential Care Subsidy Amendment (No.1).Airports Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 51.Australian Communications Authority Act—Determinations—Radiocommunications (Charges) No. 1 of 1997—1998 Amendment No. 1.Telecommunications (Charges) No. 1 of 1998.Broadcasting Services Act—Notice—Broadcasting Services (Events) No. 1 of 1994—1997 Amendment No. 1. Civil Aviation Act—Civil Aviation Regulations—Civil Aviation Orders—Part 105—Amendments 1998 12 (2) February, 16 (2) February, 19 February, 25 (2) February, 27 (2) February, 2 (2) March, 3 (2) March, 4 (8) March, 5 (3) March, 6 (5) March, 13 March.Part 106—Amendments 1998 26 (2) February, 5 March.Part 107—Amendments 1998 26 February, 5 March.Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act—Notice of establishment of Australian Rail Track Corporation.Customs Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 38.Defence Act—Determination under section 58B 1998 No. 10.Endangered Species Protection Act—Declarations under section 18 Nos. 97/ESP4, 97/ESP5.Fisheries Management Act—Determination 1998 No. SBTA1.Directions 1998 Nos. NPFD 13, NPFD 14, NPFD 15, NPFD 16, NPFD 17, NPFD 18, NPFD 19.Higher Education Funding Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. T7, T8.Migration Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 Nos. 36, 37.Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 34.Migration Agents Registration Renewal Charge Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 35.Navigation Act—Marine orders 1998 Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.Public Service Act—Determinations 1998 Nos. 5, 6, LES 7, LES 8.Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—Notices—1997 Nos. 8, 12.1998 No. 1.Student and Youth Assistance Act—Regulations—Statutory Rules 1998 No. 33.Taxation Administration Act—Rulings 1998 Nos. TR2, TR3, TR4.Telecommunications Act 1997—Determination 1997 Telecommunications (Service Provider-Identity Checks for Pre-paid Carriage Services).Instrument Telecommunications Labelling (Customer Equipment and Customer Cabling) Notice No. 2 of 1997.Telecommunications Numbering Plan 1997.Answers to Questions in Writing1371The following answers to questions were circulated:1371(Question No. 2221)22211371Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 September 1997:(1) Does the Australian Bureau of Statistics expect that private sector new capital investment will be 2.4% below the comparable figure in 1996-97; if so, is his Department reviewing its forecasts of economic growth; if not, why not.(2) Have stock markets in the Asian region recently collapsed; if so, (a) has his Department made recommendations on the likely impact on Australian economic growth and (b) will the impact on currencies have a negative impact on Australian trade in the region.(3) Has his Department analysed the probable impact the El Nino effect will have on Australian agricultural output over the next 12 to 18 months; if so, what are the details; if not, why not.1371Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The most recent data in respect of private sector investment expectations for 1997-98 were published on 26 February 1998 in Private new capital expenditure and expected expenditure to June 1999 (ABS Catalogue No. 5625.0). Based on responses from businesses to the survey conducted in January and February, estimated private new capital expenditure for 1997-98 is $46,074 million. This, the fifth estimate for the 1997-98 financial year, is 5.6 per cent higher than the estimated level of new capital expenditure reported by businesses in the fifth set of investment expectations for 1996-97.Investment intentions data are not used in isolation to forecast investment. A broad range of factors are considered, particularly the key influences on investment such as the rate of return on the capital stock, capacity utilisation, profitability, and the cost of borrowing. In addition, leading indicators, such as approvals, commencements and finance commitments, are also examined when preparing investment forecasts.At present, both the investment fundamentals and leading indicators point to strong growth in real business investment in 1997-98. The outlook for business investment, including revised forecasts for growth in business investment in 1997-98, is discussed in detail in the Government's Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. (2) (a) and (b) There has recently been considerable instability in some Asian financial markets, particularly in the ASEAN countries (Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines) and Korea. This instability and its impact on trade and the outlook for the Australian economy are discussed in detail in the Government's Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.(3) Drier than normal weather conditions have occurred throughout much of 1997. However, timely rainfall occurred in September, resulting in upward appraisals of winter crop production to around expectations formed at the commencement of the season. In terms of the outlook, the most recent Bureau of Meteorology reports indicate that slightly drier than normal weather conditions are expected to continue into mid 1998. The implications of weather conditions for farm production were addressed in the Government's Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.1371(Question No. 2510)25101371Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 18 November 1997:(1) Has his attention been drawn to recent comments of the German Ambassador to Australia, Mr Klaus Zeller, that the Government's unwillingness to commit Australia to participation in the Expo 2000 World Trade Fair in Hanover, Germany, is a total contradiction of everything Australia wants to achieve in Germany and Europe; if so, what is his response.(2) Has his attention also been drawn to recent comments by the Western Australian Government's Agent-General in London, Mr Clive Griffiths, that the federal Government' s unwillingness to commit Australia to participation in Expo 2000 was terrible and very damaging to Australia; if so, what is his response.(3) Did he have discussions, formal or otherwise, with a representative of the German government regarding Australia's participation in Expo 2000 before the comments referred to in parts (1) and (2) were made; if so, (a) what was the nature of the discussions and (b) did he give any undertakings concerning Australia's participation; if so, what undertakings.(4) Has he or his representative given an assurance to a representative of the German government that Australia would participate in Expo 2000. (5) Did he state in the House on 9 May 1996 that the Government would give important priority to relations with Europe during its time in office; if so, how is this consistent with the Government's decision concerning participation in Expo 2000.(6) Has he made personal representations to (a) the Prime Minister or (b) the Treasurer to seek the funds needed to establish an Australian pavilion at the Expo 2000; if so, what was the outcome; if not, why not.(7) Would an Australian pavilion at Expo 2000 lead to (a) opportunities for Australian businesses in Australia and abroad, (b) consequent job opportunities for unemployed Australians and (c) the promotion of Australia to tens of millions of expected visitors to Expo 2000; if not, why not.1372Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The Government's initial decision not to participate in Expo 2000 was made in the 1996-97 budget context. The Prime Minister announced on 1 December 1997 that the States and Commonwealth would share the costs of Australian participation in Expo 2000(2) Yes. I refer to my answer in part (1)(3) Yes.(a) The discussions were private.(b) I refer the Honourable Member to the record of my press conference in Dresden on 7 November in which I indicated that the Government would be looking at a variety of funding options with the private sector, the State Governments and the Federal Government.(4) The Australian Ambassador in Bonn has conveyed the Prime Minister's decision to Chancellor Kohl and Foreign Minister Kinkel.(5) Yes. Australia's participation in Expo 2000 is consistent with this statement.(6) Such discussions as took place were private.(7) Responsibility for Australia's participation in Expo 2000 rests with the Minister for Sport and Tourism.1372(Question No. 2534)25341372McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business, on notice, on 20 November 1997:(1) Has the Minister's Department engaged consultants since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) which consultants have been engaged, (b) what was the nature of the work undertaken in each case and (c) what was the sum paid in each case.(2) What is the estimated cost of consultancy work being undertaken for the Minister's Department for which no payment has been made.1372Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Information on consultants is gathered by financial years. Expenditure in 1995/96 amounted to $3,176,856, in 1996/97 amounted to $1,461,732 and for the first half of 1997/98 $1,145,096 and the details of consultancies are contained in the 1995/96 and 1996/97 annual reports of the Department of Industrial Relations. The following provides information as to the nature of the work undertaken for the period from 1 July 1997, grouped under broad headings, relating to the functions of the department and to management of its operations.The consultancy information for Maritime Transport is provided for the period 9 October to 31 December 1997. Prior to 9 October Maritime Transport was part of the Department of Transport & Regional Development (DTRD). DTRD provided consultancy information for the period prior to 9 October in their response to Question on Notice No. 2542.Small Business:ConsultantNature of WorkSum PaidCoopers and LybrandSupport the strategy and business case development for the Single Entry Point to Business$132,151.00Price WaterhouseStudy into the costs incurred by small business when complying with food regulation$15,000.00Aquatech Pty Ltd Preparation of the Business Longitudinal Survey State Report$7,125.00John Baker & AssociatesPreparation and consultation for regulatory performances indicators workshop$4,281.00 Access Economics Pty Ltd1997 annual review of small business section two$7,000.00B & D Consulting Pty LtdManagement of the Australian Small and Medium Enterprise Database$20,639.00Electronic Trading Concepts Pty LtdReview domestic (all levels of government) developments in electronic service delivery to identify projects of relevance for Single Entry Point Taskforce (SEPT) and to extract lessons which can be applied to the project$14,342.00Xamax Consultancy Pty LtdProvide legal advice for the Single Entry Point Taskforce (SEPT) Project$33,150.00Wizard PersonnelFacilitation of planning and architecture meetings, documentation of meetings and review of project documents for the Single Entry Point Taskforce (SEPT)$2,295.00Workplace Relations:Covalent Systems Pty LtdCIMS (Client Information Management System) programming$11,019.75Corporate ConsultingTRAIS (Trades Recognition Australia Information System) maintenance$552.00Instat Australia Pty LtdProduce methodology to create code books for the Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey 95 (AWIRS 95) plus training and help line support$2,015.00Instat Australia Pty LtdAssist in the conduct of workshops in Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney on the content and use of the AWIRS 95 data sets$7,359.00Timothy O'LearyCreation of Panel Codebooks and preparation of correspondence tables for AWIRS 95$5,787.00Australian Bureau of StatisticsProvide information on wages and employment of geographical region$2,200.00Communication PartnersEditing of AWIRS 95 book and summary booklet$4,700.00Communication PartnersProduction of index for AWIRS 95 book$2,000.00Blake Dawson WaldronReview of the Management of Claims for Workers Compensation pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988$118,837.37CompucraftProvision of services in relation to implementation of WAD (Workplace Agreement Database)$9,000.00Maritime & Waterfront:ACIL Economics & Policy Pty LtdDevelopment of Industrial Relations Strategy for Waterfront Reform$114,074.80BGC MediaResearch & Advice on Maritime Issues$4,968.53 Corrs Chamber Westgarth LawyersResearch & Advice on Maritime Issues$89,956.28Mr David WebbResearch & Advice on Maritime Issues$4,658.85Dr John DaviesOptions for Achieving Waterfront Reform$21,952.54Dr Stephen WebsterOptions for Achieving Waterfront Reform$7,758.15Minter, Ellison LawyersResearch & Advice on Maritime Issues$104,255.69National Institute of Labour StudiesOptions for Achieving Waterfront Reform$15,375.00Monash University Centre for Economic ResearchAssess Economic Benefits of Maritime Reform$15,000.00Centre for International EconomicsTasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Authority Review$110,243.00Stuart Hicks ManagementFacilitation for Marine & Ports Workshop (7/8ths to be reimbursed from State/Territory members of Marine and Ports Group)$5,944.00Skills Development:ASK SolutionsProvision of services in relation to the delivery of interpersonal skills training$1,950.00Improved Communication SkillsProvision of services in relation to advanced reading skills$2,950.00Metropolitan Business CollegeProvision of services in relation to the delivery of keyboard skills training$600.00EducomProvision of services in relation to the delivery of GroupWise, WordPerfect and Internet training$2,375.00QDEVProvision of services in relation to the delivery of feedback skills training$500.00People & Strategy Management Consulting GroupProvision of services in relation to graduate training$10,060.00Performance Improvement:Accountancy PlacementsProvision of services in relation to preparation of CEIs and practical guides$29,137.05DGR ConsultingAssist in the conduct of the Performance Information Review in the Department$49,116.00Ernst and YoungConduct audit of Government credit card and petrol card usage. Development of fraud risk plan for the Department$19,000.00The Triulizi GroupProvision of services in relation to the delivery of workplace harassment training$3,395.31Palm Management Pty LtdProvide consultancy services for preparation, planning and facilitation of Senior Management Group meeting$4,500.00Library LocumsProvision of services in relation to library review$15,241.00 Ernst & YoungProvision of services in relation to the development of risk management strategies$12,000.00Management Support:Morgan & BanksProvision of service in relation to asset management and office machine strategy$12,045.00Macmillan & ShakespearePreparation of a remuneration packaging policy manual$1,500.00Kevlin Nominees Pty LtdProvision of services in relation to property management coordination$6,750.00Green & Green GroupRecords sentencing project$10,975.00Housley Review RFT on telecommunications strategic plan$1,800.00Price WaterhousePreparation of the Department's 1996-97 Financial Statements$46,350.00RPT ManagementComputer Network Design$14,000.00Purchasing AustraliaProduce and issue requests for tender documentation$7,212.00(2) The estimated cost of consultancy work being undertaken for the Department for which no payment has been made is as follows:Small Business:ConsultantNature of WorkEstimated CostSmall Business:Brian Sweeny and AssociatesSurvey small business on attitudes toward unfair dismissals$5,500.00Workplace Relations:Australian Bureau of StatisticsDevelop the Australian Small and Medium Enterprise Database$395,135.00University of CanberraAnalysis of workplace agreements$36,360.00John Trowbridge Consulting Pty LtdDevelopment of comparative performance monitoring of workers compensation and occupational health and safety$45,000.00Access Economics Pty LtdDevelopment of comparative performance monitoring of workers compensation and occupational health and safety$60,436.37Peter McLaughlin of World Competitive PracticesConduct a review of the Coal Mining Industry Long Service Leave funding arrangements$120,000.00John Trowbridge Consulting Pty LtdReview of the managements of claims for workers compensation pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988$25,000.00 Maritime and WaterfrontCentre for International EconomicsTasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme Authority Review$44,920.15Stuart Hicks ManagementShipping Registration Act Review$15,000.00Performance Improvement:Bruce Cutting and AssociatesFacilitation of Change Management Workshop$4,800.00Management Support:RPT ManagementComputer Network Construction and Relocation$40,000.00