1998-03-313816REPS194701998-03-31Mr SPEAKER(Rt Hon. I. McC. Sinclair) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice194719471947Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that the Deputy Prime Minister gave a commitment on the Sunday program that within 90 days he was determined that 96 per cent of Australians would have access to ISDN?DG4FISCHERMr Tim Fischer—That is a misquote.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Is the Prime Minister aware that anyone living more than seven kilometres from a digital telephone exchange will not receive ISDN service? Is the Prime Minister aware that this means that most farmers will not receive ISDN service? How can the Prime Minister guarantee that people living in the bush will receive the same services as people living in the cities?1947Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—Let me make it very clear that we stand up to providing a very adequate level and an improved level of Telstra services right across country Australia. In relation to ISDN, we already ensure that 93 per cent of Australians can have access to ISDN. We are going to push that envelope further and lift that to 96 per cent of Australians. But we are going to do it—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Beyond seven kilometres?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—This is where the misquote comes in. I want you to understand that the misquote is an honourable error, given the nature of the Laurie Oakes program. If an individual consumer applies for ISDN, provided they are within that 93 per cent at present—96 per cent by the end of this year—Telstra can, in fact, and will be required to, connect them to ISDN. That is a very reasonable benchmarking. In some cases there will be further benchmarking laid out with our consumer service guarantee and there will be further rafting up of the penalties as already provided for. We are taking a range of practi cal steps and providing guarantees which you never got around to in your 13 years of government.19471947Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Can the Treasurer inform the House of the result of the trade figures for the month of February released earlier today? What is the government's response to these figures?1947Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Page for his question. I think the honourable member will be pleased to know that the outcome on international trade in goods and services for the month of February, which showed a deficit of $321 million, was an improvement by 42 per cent on the outcome for the previous month. Most people will think that is good news—that there was an improvement in the month of February of 42 per cent on January.The result was much better than market expectations, which were expecting a trade deficit of about $550 million. Merchandise exports rose about 2.9 per cent. Non-rural and other exports increased, while services exports rose by 0.2 per cent. Merchandise imports rose 0.3 per cent after falling sharply in the previous month and, while capital goods and intermediate goods imports rose 1.6 and two per cent respectively, imports of consumption goods actually fell by 3.5 per cent. A good picture in relation to the international trade for the month of February: credits, that is, exports of goods and services, rising by about two per cent and debits, that is, imports of goods and services, staying constant. I think all Australians will welcome that outcome.Having said that, this is of course one month's figures. The government would expect, in the forthcoming year 1998-99, the current account to widen somewhat as a consequence of the external situation, particularly in relation to Asia.I endorse the comments that were recently made by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who observed:On previous occasions the cyclical widening of the current account deficit usually reflected a mixture of external influences, such as a fall in the terms of trade, plus some significant internal imbalances or policy deficiencies.He noted on this occasion that, whilst there would be a cyclical turn in relation to the current account expected, we have none of these imbalances. It would essentially be the result of an external contraction of demand, with domestic demand running faster than trend but certainly on a sustainable basis.Over the last two decades Australia has had three current account blow-outs: in 1985-86 at 6.7 per cent, in 1989-99 at 6.8 per cent, and in 1994-95 at 6.7 per cent. We would not expect a current account blow-out of anything like that over the course of 1998-99. But, importantly, the change in the government's economic position has put us in a much stronger position in relation to those cyclical turnarounds. Whilst, during those blow-outs, Australia was suffering from high inflation, we now have one of the best inflation rates in the developed world. Whilst, in respect of at least two of those blow-outs Australia was in serious deficit, we now have the opportunity to get our budget into surplus.We go into this cyclical turnaround and external challenge in a strengthened position because this government took the key decisions to strengthen the Australian economy. We had the foresight to strengthen the Australian economy at a time when developments in Asia may not have been expected, but when it was prudent to do so—to set Australia up for opportunities which we otherwise would have missed. They are the benefits of good, sound economic policy.19481948Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question, again, is to the Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister only guarantee untimed local voice and data calls out of people's residences last night in a telecast on Prime Television? Is this because he intends to allow the introduction of both timed voice and data calls for business, in clear breach of his election undertakings? How will timed voice and data calls help small business?1948Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The full extent of the community service obligations and the full extent of what we are prepared to do in this area, which goes way beyond what you ever did, are contained in the legislation that we have brought in. Your attempts to suggest otherwise are wrong.19481948Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of how the government's trade policy is creating a win-win environment for Australian exporters? How will this week's meeting of the Cairns Group of agricultural trading nations assist in creating greater opportunities in world trade? Are there any alternative strategies under discussion?1948Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNPTrade; Deputy Prime Minister10—I thank the member for Parramatta for his question. I note that 22 per cent of Australia's top 100 exporters have operations in the western Sydney region. I note also that there are some very diverse exporters there—Electric Transit, exporting electric vehicles; Huxley Homes, manufacturing steel framed housing and targeting the Japanese market; and a new Australian motorcycle company. You failed me on my visit to your electorate! I wanted to go to that motorcycle company during a very busy morning. I know you will rectify this on my next visit.I am very happy to build on the answer by the Treasurer, arising from the release of trade figures earlier today. Exports are up two per cent and imports are down 0.2 per cent. This leads to a very interesting set of figures, which I now advise the House of for the first time. In the first eight months of this financial year, compared to the first eight months of the last financial year, exports are up $8 billion, or 12.1 per cent. Eight months versus the previous eight months, our exports are staying up longer and stronger. In fact, they are up $8 billion to $76.1 billion. Yes, imports are rising by about the same level of expansion but, against all odds, our exporters deserve a gold medal as they go through these very tough trading times, especially in the Asian region, and get the job done.We are about pursuing a policy over the last two years of trade diversification—diversification of product and diversification of markets within and also beyond Asia. It is in that context that we have also been focus ing on the country to country bilateral negotiations. It is a bit interesting to see that the frontbench of the Labor Party is split on this matter again. I have the publication the Good Weekend, the young and restless.DT4CREANMr Crean—Haven't you got the book?DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—This is not the one Kim Beazley is launching. The book is over here, in fact. Whilst we hate to add to the policy agony which exists at the moment on the Labor Party's side, let me pose to the House a question: would our exports figures be as good as they are today if we had Stephen Smith as minister for trade?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Would they have been as good if we had had Peter Cook as minister for trade?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—Would they have been as good if we had had Kim Beazley, the failed Minister for Finance, as Prime Minister?UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—No.DG4Mr TIM FISCHER—That is the truth of the matter. Your agenda would have sabotaged our exporters. Your agenda, without any budget balance strategy and with a huge blow-out in fiscal policy, would have sabotaged our exports.We are making real progress against the odds—and full marks to our exporters—but we are up against a number of tough circumstances, not the least of which is export subsidisation by Europe and market access problems. These are matters I have discussed this morning with the Minister for Agriculture from Argentina, Mr Sola, and President Menem. Those talks will continue with the Prime Minister during the rest of this day, but that is a prelude to the Cairns Group ministerial meeting, which will take place in Sydney tomorrow and the next day, where we will finetune our agenda to take to the World Trade Organisation in May and make further real progress on behalf of our exporters, be they farmers, small business operators or from the manufacturing industry. We are proud to stand up for our exporters. There is no white flag brigade on our side of the House.19491949Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister, and it reiterates the last question, which he did not answer. Prime Minister, do you recollect in your election campaign that you undertook that you would ensure untimed local voice and data calls, not just out of people's residences but also out of businesses? When you made a statement last night, Prime Minister, on these matters you excluded reference to business. Does this mean that that was a non-core promise? Are you now going to fail to prevent timed voice and data calls to business premises on the local service?1949Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It does not mean anything of the kind.19491949Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Family Services, representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts. What is the government's response to today's report by the Australian Communications Authority on Telstra's level of service in the December quarter?1949Smith, Warwick, MPMr WARWICK SMITHGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—Mr Speaker—DT4CREANMr Crean—That tie's a bit long. It's almost down to your shoes.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—Leave me alone.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable members of the opposition can leave him alone now and let him answer the question.GJ4Mr WARWICK SMITH—I thank the member for Indi for his question. I know that he has a keen interest in telecommunications matters for regional and rural Australia. Indeed, the Telecommunications Performance Monitoring Bulletin released by the Australian Communications Authority does give some concern. It is clearly unacceptable. The percentage of new services connected on time to clients, particularly in country areas, and the percentage of faults cleared within one or two working days of notification has also declined. Telstra's quality of service levels has been unacceptable for many years, particularly in regional Australia. It is true that only 64 per cent of faults nationally were cleared within one working day of notification in the December 1997 quarter. It is also true that this fault clearance has only exceeded 75 per cent in two quarters in the last four years. There is clearly room for improvement. Yesterday's announcement by my colleague the minister for communications sends, I believe, an unmistakable message to Telstra that there must be a greater effort and a greater concerted effort to meet customer obligations. It is interesting to look at what we have done since we have been in government to try to address these issues in a concerted way. There was a failure of the previous government to address the issue of digitisation of telephone exchanges. As I have said in this place before, the basic building blocks for a telecommunications system are those exchanges. If you upgrade the exchanges to digital capacity, then a range of new services that can flow to urban, regional and remote Australia have the opportunity to be delivered. That is an absolute fundamental, and we have made those commitments. High speed data capacity is also another issue that we have committed ourselves to with the rollout of ISDN, something that the Labor Party did not do. The upgrading of the definition of the standard telephone service is another area we have taken account of as we can again see the development of new technologies, which I have spoken about in this place. The opposition opposed the $250 million regional telecommunications fund. Why I do not know. They come in here with confected indignation and a series of questions about regional and remote Australia and yet they opposed the very opportunity to support a concerted, direct application of funds to address those issues. So I think they come to this argument with unclean hands. Finally, I might mention the customer service guarantee and the extension of the customer service guarantee which we outlined yesterday. In this House in 1996 when I introduced the legislation, we introduced the customer guarantee. What we did yesterday was to extend the customer service guarantee to provide for a very significant issue—that is, the capacity for the Australian Communications Authority to address systemic problems that emerge from receiving individual complaints to the Telecommunications Ombudsman scheme. That enables the ACA to take direct action to address those matters to require remedial action of a carrier. That is a very significant change. With the capacity to deliver $10 million fines, that is a clear indication of this government's resolve to address the customer performance by Telstra to the satisfaction of urban, regional and remote Australians.I might say in finality that the concept of a customer service guarantee was something that this government put in place. You received the information and knew the need for such an apparatus—something to go into the consumer arsenal to require better performance from carriers—and you did nothing. You did nothing. What you should be doing is applauding this government for what it has done in this area as it addresses the need to see service improvement right around this country, but particularly in regional areas, for which I, the member for Indi and others are concerned. Rest assured we are addressing the issues. You did not.19501950Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, will you give an unequivocal guarantee that untimed local voice and data calls will continue to be available for business premises?1950Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will give the guarantee that has been part of the government's policy for some time. All of the guarantees that have been given by the government and by the minister in relation to these areas, both in respect to residences and businesses, remain.19501950Reid, Bruce, MPMr REIDVT4BendigoLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the benefits to small business resulting from the government's responsible budget policy and also promotion of competition in the banking system?1951Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Perhaps the most spectacular illustration of the benefits of the government's policies in this area was demonstrated yesterday when the Westpac Banking Corporation, one of the largest banks in Australia, announced an absolutely revolutionary approach to the costing of funds lent to the small business sector. What the Westpac Bank delivered yesterday represented the great breakthrough that small business has been waiting for for years.By way of background, I might remind the parliament that, when my government came to office in March 1996, the basic lending rate for small business in Australia was 11.25 per cent. Many customers had to pay much more for their funds, but the base rate was 11.25 per cent. I am pleased to say that Westpac announced yesterday that its new base rate would be 7.2 per cent. In other words, in just over two years the base lending rate for small business has fallen from 11.25 per cent to 7.2 per cent. That is a fall of four per cent over a rate of 11.25 per cent. Even the most mean-minded and miserable of those who sit opposite would have to acknowledge that that represents a breathtaking breakthrough for the small business community of Australia. It is stunningly good news for the small business community of Australia. It is a direct result of the financial policies that my government has followed. It would not have been possible if we had not eliminated Mr Beazley's $10½ billion deficit. It would not have been possible if we had not set about putting in order the financial wreckage that we inherited from the former government when we were elected in March 1996.In case anybody thinks for a moment that 11.25 per cent was the worst of it under the former government, I might remind you that in January 1990, when Mr Hawke was Prime Minister, Mr Keating was the Treasurer and I think the Leader of the Opposition was a senior minister in the government, the small business overdraft rate leaped to 20.5 per cent. It almost beggars belief in 1998 that the small business community could have suf fered, let alone survived, a level of interest rates reaching 20.5 per cent. Not only at 7.2 per cent are we down dramatically from the level that obtained in March 1996, but we are dramatically down from the level of 20.5 per cent that obtained in January 1990.We ask rhetorically: what does that mean for the small business sector? It means more investment. It means more jobs. It means more opportunity. It means more hope. It means more optimism for the small business sector. Many commentators have observed this morning that this could be worth conservatively between $150 million and $400 million a year in additional assets for the small business community of Australia.I want to make it clear to my colleagues—and almost the entire rural and regional Australia is represented by those members who represent the Liberal and National Party—that the cut in interest rates, this new and revolutionary low interest rate regime, for the small business sector of Australia will flow through to the farming and rural sector of Australia. For years and years the farmers of Australia have asked that they get lower interest rates, that they get a fairer deal from the banks of Australia.I renew the call that the Treasurer and I made this morning for the remaining trading banks of Australia to pass on the reduction that has been offered by the Westpac Banking Corporation. I call on the other banks to follow the lead of Westpac. I call on the other banks to join in giving to the small business sector of Australia this much needed breakthrough, this long overdue breakthrough and a breakthrough long denied to them by 13 years of Labor government and a breakthrough made possible by the sound financial policies my government has followed since its election in March 1996.19511951McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of allegations that in 1994 Mr Chris Corrigan proposed to strip assets from the stevedoring company of which he was then chairman so that there would be no resources to meet workers' entitlements if they lost their jobs, the so-called Cobar option? Will you contact Mr Corrigan immediately and advise him that you will condemn any such action in the event of mass sackings of waterfront workers by Patrick and that you will withdraw your support for him if he pursues such a course?1952Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Canberra for that question. Let me make my attitude towards Mr Corrigan and the National Farmers Federation very clear. We will support to the hilt their efforts within the law to provide competition on the Australian waterfront. Within the law we will support their efforts. I applaud the attempts of anybody who is willing to bring competition to the Australian waterfront. I applaud the courage of the National Farmers Federation. I respect the courage of Mr Corrigan.Let me say that the Australian business community, the rural sector of Australia, the consumers of Australia—in fact, the entire Australian community is desperate to have a modern, efficient, competitive Australian waterfront. It has taken the election of a coalition government to change the law to make that possible. It has taken the election of a coalition government to break the unfair monopoly on the recruitment and supply of waterfront labour by the Maritime Union of Australia. Only the election of a coalition government has made this possible. Only the election of a coalition government has encouraged people to embark upon the provision of a more productive and a more competitive Australian waterfront.Let me repeat: we will support to the hilt anybody who is prepared to provide a better deal on the Australian waterfront. We will support them to the hilt, provided they act within the law. We are in the business of providing a more competitive Australian waterfront. We will not be diverted from the support that we have given to those who are willing to do it. They deserve the support of the Australian community and I believe overwhelmingly they will receive it.19521952Bailey, Fran, MPMrs BAILEYJT4McEwanLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen reports describing Australia's taxation system as sclerotic and in need of reform? Treasurer, would you advise the House which features of the tax system are sclerotic and which groups and individuals share this view?1952Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for McEwen for her question. There are a lot of interesting individuals who do share the view that the Australian taxation system is sclerotic. I have actually seen reported recently comments to the effect that one of the problems of the Australian taxation system is the narrowness of the current indirect tax base. I have also seen recent comments that there are advantages of taxing consumption over income to make sure that high income earners pay their fair share of tax. In fact, claims along that line are made in an important new work by the member for Werriwa, which is entitled Civilising Global Capital .4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You didn't even pay for it. You got it out of the library. What a scrooge! Why didn't you pay the $24.95? He's a scrooge. Give it back to the library.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Banks will remain silent!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The honourable member for Banks is upset that the member for Werriwa is getting in front of him in the long line of Labor hopefuls. It goes: Beazley, Evans, Crean, Kernot, Latham, Tanner, Banks.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You got it from the library. Put it back in the library. Pay the $24.95.CT4Mr COSTELLO—There is no need to get so upset, because we had rather noticed that there was a new sense of intellectual vigour on the Labor front bench this morning. With the return of the member for Werriwa, the IQ of the Labor front bench has doubled today. He is apparently the thinker of the modern Labor Party. We are actually thinking of declaring thinkers in the Labor Party an endangered species. In this book Civilising Global Capital , the leader of the Labor Party says:The canvas Latham paints upon is very broad indeed. May all his readers be able to appreciate it in its full breadth as I have. Civilising Global Capital might just as well be subtitled Generation X meets Jurassic Park . Here we have the generation X who are desperate for leadership. When they come out and call for tax reform, they hear the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park—the Labor Party leadership, with Tyrannosaurus Kim over there—saying, `Whatever you do, don't talk about the tax system.' When they come out and talk about how frightfully immoral it would be to go into economic nostalgia, they hear old Simon say, `Don't talk about industry policy.' The member for Hotham was described as `frightfully immoral'. From now on, he will be known as `the member for Hotham FI' in this parliament. He was bagged by his own frontbencher in this marvellous work.But the important thing is this: we will not try to discourage thinking in the Labor Party. It is something there is an awful lack of in the modern leadership. The member for Werriwa—and he has done it well—has stood up and tried to assert some leadership, and we congratulate him for doing it. We know why he would want to assert some leadership in the Labor Party.You get asked a lot of questions in this parliament that you can answer pretty easily, but one question I could never answer is if somebody from the opposition got up and asked me: What does Kim Beazley actually stand for? Would there be anyone in the parliament capable of answering a question like that? What policy issue is Kim Beazley actually prepared to take on? What issue of leadership could he possibly show to the Australian Labor Party?When the member for Werriwa says that the tax system is sclerotic, he is right. When he says that we should tax consumption, he is right. When he talks about the services base, he is right. When he fingers the lack of leadership in the Labor leadership, he is right. When he talks about the member for Hotham being frightfully immoral, he is right. All we can say is, `Keep the thinking coming, old son. We appreciate it, even if your party does not.' 19531953Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to your advice to the opposition that, if it has any evidence of a conflict of interest in relation to Senator Parer, it should put up or shut up. Is it a fact that the ethanol fuel bounty was axed in the coalition's first budget at a time when Senator Parer was the responsible minister, resulting in serious financial repercussions for the Manildra Company, which had invested millions of dollars in ethanol related and strongly farmer beneficial infrastructure in both my electorate and the electorate of Gilmore?1953Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The minister held the portfolio that he now holds at the time that decision was taken.19531953Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, have you seen reports of plans by P&C Stevedores to expand its non-union docks venture to ports in Queensland and Western Australia within weeks? Would you advise the House if the actions of the government in reforming the waterfront are gaining support?1953Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Fisher for his question. There are reports today in the press that the PCS business is considering its possibilities and options of setting up business in Brisbane. I am delighted to advise the House that the Premier of Queensland, Mr Borbidge, has invited the PCS representatives to go to Queensland for discussions, and those discussions are going to be held this week.There is no doubt that Brisbane port operations would be much more efficient from a stevedoring perspective if they could get some real competition into that port. The facts speak for themselves when it comes to efficiency levels in the port of Brisbane. I have here the crane rates from the port of Brisbane for the September quarter 1997, and those crane rates are 16.1. That is actually less than the five-port national average for Australia, which is 18.3, and Australia's average is well below an international comparative figure, which would at a reasonable level be about 25 crane lifts an hour. So the levels of inefficiency in Brisbane, unfortunately, are chronic. The numbers go back many years, and there is no question that it would be a big advantage to exporters in Queensland if they could get a more efficient system.There was an international survey out not so long ago which compared 18 ports, including Australian and international ports on a comparative basis. When you look at Brisbane's results, on reliability it was 14 out of 18; on turnaround speed, it was 13 out of 18; and on a value for money criteria, it was 14 out of 18. Of course, the ports which were worse than Brisbane were other ports in Australia—Melbourne, Sydney and the like.So if a great state like Queensland, which has a vibrant export industry, could have an efficient port operation in respect of stevedoring, a lot of jobs would be created in Queensland. That would generally be for the benefit of Queensland workers and it would boost export income for the country as a whole. If we can boost Australia's export income, then we can start to fix the debt which we were left with by the Labor Party, who are now opposing the very things that we have done that have actually made this a possibility.The last thing I would say is that there is very widespread support for these reforms, not just from the initiative of the Queensland government. I thought the Business Council of Australia put it very well when they said last week:In the view of the Council, comprehensive waterfront reform remained a major area of `unfinished business' on the national micro-economic reform agenda and, if tackled fundamentally, would flow on substantial benefits to the national economy and the community.Those words are absolutely right and particularly important for Brisbane.19541954McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister stand by the statement made by his Minister for Workplace Relations on 23 October 1997:. . . I do not support the concept of the government providing financial support as a reward for people adopting community standards for employee practices.Given reports today, will you guarantee that your government will not provide a single cent of taxpayers' money to finance any decision by Patrick's to sack their existing work force and replace them with another? Or do you now believe in providing support for companies that adopt your standard of employee practices: sack them and replace them with another lot?1954Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I believe in a number of things in relation to this. The most important is that I believe in a decent, competitive Australian waterfront. The end game is to help Australian jobs and to help Australian investments. That is the end game.Mr McMullan interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is very interesting that the member for Canberra talks about things done in 1994. Who was in government in 1994? The Labor Party was. You also talk about Mr Corrigan. It is well known around this building that the best friend Mr Corrigan ever had in politics was Paul Keating. It is very, very well known. Mr Corrigan is a businessman.DT4CREANMr Crean—Not true.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It is very, very well known. Mr Corrigan is involved in an activity which is designed to give the Australian waterfront a chance and is designed to give Australian exporters a chance. The statements that have been made by my colleague the minister for workplace relations in relation to redundancies on the Australian waterfront, I stand by fully. I might remind those who sit opposite that in 1989 the Hawke government gave certain guarantees and entered into certain arrangements under the WIRA process which involved the provision of very, very large amounts of money.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker, on the question of relevance. The Prime Minister is referring to voluntary redundancies. What we are talking about is sackings.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is re sponding to the question and is entirely within standing orders.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am not aware of anybody who has been sacked, so the proposition that he is putting to me is entirely hypothetical; therefore, the appropriate response for me to give is to state the policy. Let me start again. The main aim of the policy is to generate jobs and to generate exports and to generate investment, and you do that by having a more competitive waterfront. You lot were prepared to spend $420 million of the money of the taxpayers of Australia and you got absolutely nothing in return.We, by contrast, have been willing to change the law; we have had the courage to change the law. And, as a result of that, the National Farmers Federation and Mr Corrigan's company have had the courage to give new hope and new opportunity to people who use the Australian waterfront. I say again: they will have our support to the hilt, provided they act in accordance with the law. I am not aware of any law that they have broken. While ever they observe the law they will have our support, and I believe they will have the support and encouragement of the overwhelming bulk of the Australian people.19551955McDougall, Graeme, MPMr McDOUGALLKK6GriffithLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of alternative proposals in the area of employment and education policies? What is the government's response to these proposals?1955Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPEmployment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs;Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Griffith for his question. It is quite clear that the policy vacuum on the other side of the House is causing intense frustration on the front bench. The member for Werriwa is now fed up with waiting for some leadership and direction from the Leader of the Opposition. He is lashing out in this new book, trying to come up with some new ideas.I have to say to the member for Griffith that there are very few new ideas in the portfolio area of the member for Werriwa. He has never been much interested in education or training. You could go through this book and you would be hard put to come up with a decent idea. But he has been very busy thinking hard in the portfolio areas of other members of the front bench, particularly in the portfolio areas of the member for Hotham, the member for Holt and the member for Batman. One thing the member for Werriwa knows—and this book has been coming for a long time—is that there is a fundamental structural problem with policy in the Labor Party: they do not know what their policy is until it has been posted to them by the ACTU. As he said in 1990 in revising Labor's agenda: `This decade the ALP will be forced to confront the fading relevance of its trade union affiliates.' It is eight years down the track, the decade is almost finished and the member for Hotham, ex-President of the ACTU, and the member for Batman, ex-President of the ACTU, are still there on the front bench, and they do not look like fading away. The member for Werriwa is setting out to blast them out of their positions.The party is coming apart at the seams. The only way in which the Leader of the Opposition knows that he is going to fill that policy vacuum is to wait down there at the letterbox day after day—waiting, waiting, waiting for the letter from the ACTU; the unions have got to come to his rescue. Every day he anxiously opens up the letterbox and peers inside and all there is is a policy vacuum; that is all he has got. He takes that back, and that is all he is able to put on the table. You have to admire the member for Werriwa. He has tried to address this structural problem but he has failed. Maybe he could think up some policies in his own area, because that would be a good start.19551955Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, my question without notice is addressed to the Prime Minister, and it relates to his dishonest assurances to older Australians which were made in 1996.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I think that is getting pretty close. I would withdraw that remark, thank you.MG4Mr LEE—Mr Speaker, could I draw your attention to your ruling yesterday on page 1302 of the Hansard when you allowed the Prime Minister to refer to my `miserable, dishonest claims'.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Can I direct the honourable member to standing order 147:The Speaker may direct that the language of a question be changed if it seems to him unbecoming or not in conformity with the standing orders of the House.MG4Mr LEE—Are you saying they can use `dishonest' in answers but not in questions? Is that what you are telling us, Mr Speaker?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member has been in this House long enough to know there is an entirely different set of standing orders relating to the presentation of a question.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—You're mates.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Batman will withdraw that remark.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—I withdraw the suggestion that you're mates.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Thank you. The honourable member for Dobell knows that there is a capacity to alter a question, and I suggest that you withdraw that word, which is the only word that I am asking you to withdraw. Will you please put your question?MG4Mr LEE—I will rephrase the question, Mr Speaker. It is addressed to the Prime Minister and it relates to his dishonoured assurances to older Australians. Is the Prime Minister aware of the submission from Women's Health Victoria to the Senate inquiry into public dental services which reported examples of families who have been forced to sell furniture in order to pay for private dental care? Does the Prime Minister believe that low income families should have to choose between basic dental care and selling their furniture?1956Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I am pleased to—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I am sorry, there is a point of order behind you.3K6CAMERONMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Is it in order to require a minister or the Prime Minister to reflect on a submission to a parliamentary committee which has not yet reported to the House?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The question is in order.ZD4Mr HOWARD—In response to the member for Dobell, who asked me a question relating to the dental program, can I take the opportunity, first of all, of referring to the question that he asked me yesterday.MG4LEEMr Lee—Are you going to answer my letter?ZD4Mr HOWARD—I am actually; I might even sign it in front of you. I have had the opportunity of checking the records in relation to this. Can I remind the honourable member for Dobell that, contrary to what is implied in his letter, the reference that I made to a `miserable, dishonest claim' was not a reference to allegations made by the Council for the Ageing, which I regard as a very reputable body, but rather to your attempt to suggest that the abolition of the program breached an undertaking.The truth is that your party, the Labor Party, fully intended to scrap the program, had it remained in government. The program was due to cease, the contracts were expiring, and all we did was bring forward cessation by six months. You made no—MG4LEEMr Lee—I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister wants to add to an answer, he does that later in question time. He does not do it at the start of an answer to Women's Health Victoria.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Dobell will resume his seat.MG4LEEMr Lee—And how can you claim a $400 million—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Dobell is out of order. He will resume his seat.ZD4Mr HOWARD—It was not an entitlement. It was a program that you would have got rid of if you had been re-elected. That is the bottom line. You would have got rid of it if you had been re-elected. Your attempt to pretend otherwise is as duplicitous as the attempt of the Leader of the Opposition to have it both ways when it comes to the waiting period for migrants. It is typical of the Labor Party that what it will do—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Before I call the Leader of the Opposition I want members of the opposition to remain silent. Nobody can hear what is going on. This is supposed to be a forum for civilised debate. I suggest that all members remain silent.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I take a point of order which goes to relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a question relating to the dental health program and people selling their furniture.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will raise his point of order.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—He then started to deviate into a discussion of migrant benefits and attempted to take that a point further.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—This is not a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his place.PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—There was $400 million in forward estimates for that program, and you cut it, Prime Minister.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his place.ZD4Mr HOWARD—Mr Speaker, the reality is that I was asked a question about the dental program. You would have scrapped it. You did not make any reference to it in your 1996 election campaign and, like your duplicity on the migrant waiting period, you say one thing to one group and another thing to another group. So far as the submission is concerned, I have not seen it. I will have a look at it and, if there is anything I have to add, I will do so.Questions Without Notice195719571957Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, while I am on my feet, can I add to a question that I was asked a little earlier by the Leader of the Opposition? I said, in answer to the Leader of the Opposition, that we stood by the guarantees and commitments regarding calls, both voice and data, that had been made by the government. Amongst those, of course, was a commitment to the maintenance of untimed voice calls for both residences and businesses. I might have added at the time, but I did not—and I will do so now—that the Telecommunications Act of the previous government, unlike what we have done, did not contain a guarantee of untimed business voice calls.Questions Without Notice195719571957Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Family Services. Is the minister aware of recent reports of a survey of general practitioners in which claims have been made that patients have been put at risk under the present health system? Can the minister advise the House of any action being taken by the government to investigate these serious issues?1957Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—I thank the honourable member for Boothby for his question. There were some very serious allegations made last week about a survey run through Australian Doctor magazine, a professional magazine, where 450 general practitioners responded to a survey. Half of them made the assertion that people had suffered death or disability due to the health care system.Dr Lindsay Gazal, who is a New South Wales GP and the convener of the General Practitioner Conference and Exhibition conference which was running last weekend, appeared in print and on radio last week. In print the following comments are reported:Dr Lindsay Gazal said . . . he knew of several cases where patients did not receive optimum treatment and had died because of problems in the health system.`People are dying out there,' he said.On Canberra radio 2CN he repeated his assertion:People are dying out there in the system.On Adelaide radio 5AA, the compere said:. . . the health care system itself . . . has been the cause of a death or a disability.Now, we're talking about causation here.Dr Gazal replied:Yes, that's it.These are extremely serious allegations. Because of these allegations I have decided to set up a high level committee of inquiry. It will comprise three of Australasia's most respected medical practitioners. It will be chaired by Dr Bryce Phillips, a former National President of the Australian Medical Association, the Deputy President of the Victorian Medical Board and a commissioner with the Health Insurance Commission. He will be supported by Professor Brendan Kearney, currently the CEO of the Royal Adelaide Hospital, a past Chairman of the South Australian Health Commission and a past President of the Royal Australian College of Medical Administrators. The third person will be Mr Colin McCrae, the current President of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, an Auckland urologist.I will ask the committee of inquiry to make all possible attempts to contact each and every one of the 225 general practitioners who have claimed to have had a person suffer death or disability because of the health care system. I want to know who died, when they died and under what circumstances they died. We will attempt to identify the doctors. We will give them anonymity. We will ask that the committee reports back within six weeks. This inquiry will be conducted in privacy. It will be conducted with fairness. It will be conducted with rigour. I will report back to the House on the results of it.19581958Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you now recall giving your personal guarantee that `pensions and other social security and veterans payments and entitlements will not be cut'? Prime Minister, this poster, published by the Department of Social Security, lists the pensioner entitlements to which pensioners were entitled in 1996, and that includes free dental care, essential medicines and free hearing aids, all of which have been cut by your government. Will the Prime Minister tell the House exactly which pensioner entitlements are now covered by his personal guarantee?1958Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—An entitlement is something that flows directly from an act of parliament. You know that. I know that. Any reasonable person knows that. We have honoured our commitments in those terms.19581958Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Has the minister seen reports this morning that new migrants are still receiving social security benefits? Can the minister advise the House of the government's position on the two-year waiting period to receive social security benefits?1958Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for his question, because it does enable me to clarify some matters in relation to the two-year waiting period.5I4McMULLANMr McMullan—Is it right?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I was right yesterday. I was very right yesterday.Mr McMullan interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—And I will deal with that as well.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest the minister gets to the question and ignores altogether the interventions from the front bench opposite.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The fact is that there is already a safety net in place for migrants. I made it clear yesterday that the way in which the provisions are intended to operate was to cover refugees and humanitarian entrants. They are intended to cover people who, under the independent entry and family reunion arrangements, had changed circumstances after arrival. The fact is that there are 351 migrants who have been provided with special benefits in this category. That clearly indicates that the safety net is working as we intended.In the comments that I made yesterday—and I assume that this is what the Leader of the Opposition is referring to—I spoke about the way in which he addressed this question when he spoke to FECCA. I heard an interjection, when I said to him that I thought he was walking both sides of the street, that he asserts that when he spoke to FECCA he had made abundantly clear what was intended. I will read the quote—because I have gone back to find one—that he suggests makes this issue abundantly clear:When Labor next gains office at the federal level, we will face—as I intimated earlier—a substantially different budget situation from when we left office. We will face a situation where, because of the pressures created by the coalition's worth of more than $3 billion unfunded policy reversals last year, a budget cut of nearly $400 million like this one will be largely irretrievable for us.I have never heard a more opaque way of suggesting to a group of people, who he knows are largely of non-English speaking backgrounds, that this was a clear and unambiguous statement that he was intending to repeal—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is so pathetically blatant. Surely I am entitled to make a personal explanation immediately.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is not raising a point of order. If he wishes to make a personal explanation later, he may do so.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—We know the Leader of the Opposition has a way with words, but to use opaque language of that type and to expect that the argument I put yesterday, that they were walking both sides of the street, has no validity defies any semblance of reasonable comment. What is more important is that assertion that he was making that the Labor Party in office will face a substantially different budget situation. They will not face the budget situation that we faced—a $10.5 billion deficit, which will be addressed and we will be in surplus—PE4BEAZLEYMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: he was asked a very specific question relating to special benefits. He is now canvassing the entirety of his government's budget, and he is out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has raised a point of order relating to relevance. The question needs to be identified in the minister's answer. I suggest that he might draw his answer to a conclusion.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I certainly will. I do not have much to add but I do wish to observe that, in relation to this matter, I received a great deal of encouragement from the Leader of the Opposition himself to go well beyond the specific question. But, in the context of the $10.5 billion deficit that we found, if they were to reach office they would be facing a surplus. We have a charter of budget honesty that is in place now, and that will put it in a very different situation again.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the question. You are getting a bit wide of the mark.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Mr Speaker, I simply make the point in relation to the issue of the two-year waiting period that we have a situation in which the Leader of the Opposition, as I said yesterday, is wanting to walk down both sides of the street. He wants to put to ethnic communities an argument in relation to the two-year waiting period and he wants to try to demonstrate some semblance of budget reality when he comes into a forum like this.19591959Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for the Status of Women. Is the minister aware that a Liberal Party adviser has accused the federal government of forcing women to withdraw from the work force because of savage cuts to child care? She said:I find my situation very frustrating, because the amount of tax I was paying was three to four times greater than the child care I was receiving—TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In the preamble to the question she mentioned the fact that the accusation was from a Liberal Party adviser. It is my understanding that people's party status as part of a question should be ruled out of order.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When members of the opposition resume some silence, we will hear the honourable member for Jagajaga.PG6Ms MACKLIN—Minister, what is the cost in terms of lost tax revenue of your child-care cuts? What exactly is the purpose of child-care cuts which force women to work less, which reduce family incomes and which actually cost the government more?1959Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLPStatus of Women10—I am happy to take the details of a specific case and examine them. There have been a lot of claims from the opposition that our policies are driving women out of the work force. The fact is that there is no substantial evidence that women are leaving the work force due to our policies. In fact, labour force participation amongst women with children under the age of 15 has remained quite steady at 59 per cent. There is no evidence; that is the truth of the matter. This government inherited from Labor an unplanned, unchecked, out of control child-care system.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—You're driving them out of the work force.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Jagajaga has asked her question.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—When we brought down the planning system for child care their own shadow minister for child care gave support to it, and it was universally supported around this country. Under a Labor government for 13 years, there was no planning system in place. One must ask: were they planning to do it in year 14? Were they planning perhaps in year 15 to get their unplanned, out of control child-care sector under control? There are a couple of other facts that people need to understand about our changes to child care.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—That's what it means.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Jagajaga has asked her question. The minister has the call.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—Real outlays in child care are due to increase by three per cent under our government.CE4O'KEEFEMr O'Keefe—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under standing order 145, as it relates to relevance, everyone has seen the specific details of this case in the papers this morning. Why can't she answer the specific details?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member will resume his seat. The minister is entirely within the standing orders in the manner she is answering the question.4V5Mrs MOYLAN—Outlays under our government in child care will rise by three per cent in real terms. We will increase the number of child-care places over four years by 83,000 places targeted to areas of real need. We will be spending $4.9 billion on child-care subsidies to parents from low and middle income families. This government has had the will to tackle the problem of child care in this country to ensure that child-care services are able to be delivered to all Australian families. We are a government which has a real commitment to and policies for child care and we have taken action to make sure that our services go to all Australian families and not just to some.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—I seek to table the article in the newspaper today, so that the minister is informed.Leave not granted.19601960Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business. Will the minister inform the House of progress in delivering the Howard-Fischer government's commitment to bring Australian waterfront productivity into line with that of our competitors—4T4MELHAMMr Melham—Have you taken a job as a wharfie?AE4Mr NEHL—I can make you an appointment with a psychiatrist if you like.4T4MELHAMMr Melham—You obviously know one.AE4Mr NEHL—I can get you a referral any time you like.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I suggest you might address your question.AE4Mr NEHL—Mr Speaker, I am trying to, but it is a full moon, obviously. Will the minister inform the House of progress in delivering the Howard-Fischer government's commitment to bring Australian waterfront productivity into line with that of our competitors in other countries around the world? What obstacles to improvement is the industry facing and what measures are being taken by the government to help overcome those obstacles?1960Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Cowper for his—QJ4THEOPHANOUSDr Theophanous—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I draw your attention to standing order No. 146, which says that a question fully answered cannot be renewed. We have had a number of questions in the same way on this topic in the last few weeks. This question—the same question, different words—keeps coming up.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Calwell will know that in this place there are a good many questions put that seem to be remarkably similar. The answers do not always align each with the other, but we will be interested to hear this one.WI4Mr REITH—In answering the question, I might comment on the point of order. The point of order is that a question has been asked of me about the waterfront. I have not counted the number of questions we have had from the opposition on the waterfront. It might be three or four, but it shows you how embarrassed they are because they are now complaining that we are asking questions about the waterfront. We know you are embarrassed by this issue, but to actually suggest that the government should not ensure that this issue is aired in the public debate shows how you people are bound hand and foot to the MUA. The only time these people asked a question about the waterfront dispute—the couple of times—was when the MUA had been on the radio in the morning and then been on the phone to you guys telling you what to do in the questions you have to ask. Nothing has changed. They are weak in opposition on this issue and they were weak when they were in government.I was cleaning out a drawer in my office last Friday and I found a waterfront file which had a reference to the Shipowners Mutual Strike Insurance Association. In this paper, it recorded the fact that the level of claims against the strike insurance fund in 1987-88 was 14.7 per cent from Australia and that we were the second most strike-prone place that they had to deal with as an international insurance organisation in respect of maritime industrial action.In 1989 through to 1991-92, the Labor Party sat down with the unions and asked them how much they would like and, at the end of it, we have a worse record on industrial action than we had before it. Back in 1987-88, we were the second worst. But in 1996, we did not have a claim rate of 14.7; the claim rate had risen to 23 per cent, the highest in the Western world. We have only two per cent of the world's shipping trade, yet we had a claim rate of 23 per cent—the highest level of any country—as a result of those official figures.When you look at Labor's record, I also came across a statement by Captain Richard Setchell, who runs the stevedoring operation for P&O. This is a statement made by him back in November 1995 referring to Labor's program from 1989 through to 1991. In reference to the Waterfront Industry Reform Authority program, it was reported:We thought we had it made, Setchell recalls wistfully, but here we are today with a work force earning more money than they have ever dreamed about, rosters guaranteeing more time off than ever and productivity levels in many areas as low as they have ever been. We failed to see soon enough how tough an election the ALP, needing waterfront reform as a showpiece, would face in 1993.You see, the reality is that from 1989 through to 1991-92 saw a lot of money paid out, including $160 million of taxpayers' money, to a whole lot of wharfies who retired, but in the end we got no fundamental change.The reason for that is that Labor in office was never prepared to tackle this issue, in the same way that Labor in opposition is complaining that we are even asking ourselves questions about the waterfront. It tells you what would happen if Labor was ever back in office because, with the changes to the law that we have made which have allowed the farmers to start up some real competition—changes to the Trade Practices Act, the establishment of the Office of the Employment Advocate, and the other reforms—Labor is now committed to repealing those provisions. We have made a lot of advances in setting in place the structural change for real reform and we are committed to it.Lastly, the MUA got a card from their brethren in London, the ITF, the other day. Many of us, when we have been ill or at Christmas time, enjoy receiving a card. It usually says, `Hope you're feeling better, get well,' or `Looking forward to the New Year, have a great a New Year.' This is the mentality of the ITF, your international brethren—the ACTU's and the ALP's mates—and this is what they say: `To MUA and all wharfies, the ITF wishes MUA and all wharfies a successful strike action.' That is how they think, that is how the Labor Party thinks, and it is no wonder they are embarrassed not to ask questions about it.ZD4HOWARDMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper .Personal Explanations196215:16:001962Beazley, 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.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—It is now almost unnecessary to make a personal explanation as the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock) managed to read out the entirety of my explanation. Nevertheless, I will make it, since he insists on his interpretation of it standing. The minister alleged that I had said one thing to FECCA and another thing in public. I do not know how the minister came to the conclusion. When the minister read the statement that I had made where I pointed out the $3 billion that this government has added to spending, unfunded, since the election—SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I draw your attention to the standing orders—but when is he going to sit down? There are two of us on our feet. Sit down!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—Sit down! Go on, sit down.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for O'Connor will adopt normal courtesy. The Leader of the Opposition will sit down.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—He has to sit down. He knows the standing orders. Go on, sit down.UNKNOWNGovernment membersGovernment members—Sit down!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his place so that we can hear the point of order.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When the members of the opposition resume some silence, I will call the honourable member for O'Connor. The member for O'Connor.SJ4TUCKEYMr Tuckey—The standing orders relating to personal explanations require the member seeking to make a personal explanation to lay out the grounds on which they have been misrepresented and they say that they are not to debate the issue.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for O'Connor. The member will resume his place.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—Sit down!10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—When members of the opposition remain silent, I will call the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition will continue his personal explanation and he should be well aware of the requirements in doing so.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—It is a full moon, Mr Speaker. The minister suggested that I had said one thing to FECCA in terms of the massive cuts that the government has made to social security in relation to the immigration program and that I had said another thing subsequently publicly. I do not know where he got that from. The only article that I have seen, which comes from the press clipping service of his department, is headed `Labor keeps migrant benefits freeze,' which then has a series of—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has to show where he is personally misrepresented.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I was misrepresented when he said that we were going to overthrow the freeze. Every publication on this has made amply clear that I said to FECCA exactly what I have said elsewhere publicly; that is, that we will not be restoring those cuts, that we will not be in a position to restore those cuts. I was misrepresented by the suggestion that I had said one thing in one place and another thing in another. The minister himself, of course, demonstrated the point by reading from my speech which indicated precisely that.Questions to the Speaker196319631963Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—In light of the government's recent announcement regarding the introduction of digital high definition television, could you detail to the House the extent to which current Sound and Vision Office facilities within Parliament House will be replaced in order to meet SAVO's obligations to provide clean TV feed for broadcast and rebroadcast in digital format? What work has been done to date for the planning for this? What equipment would be replaced at what cost? Would this cost be met from current funds or would it be an addition to the vote for the Joint House budget?1963Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I shall take that question as one on which I will request some information from the department and respond to the honourable gentleman in due course.Personal Explanations196315:21:001963Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Yes.LS4FERGUSONMr Martin Ferguson—How?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Batman will remain silent.Mr Bob Baldwin interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable member for Paterson is not helping. Please proceed, Minister.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) complains that in some way I misrepresented him yesterday in the comments I made in answer to a question.DT4CREANMr Crean—This is not a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Honourable member for Hotham, we have heard nothing yet. There is no point in interrupting at this stage. The minister will point out where he has been misrepresented.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call. At the moment he has had no chance to speak, thanks to either members of the government or the opposition.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I made the assertion that Labor and the Leader of the Opposition were walking down both sides of the street. You have objected to that and you have asserted some element of consistency in the position that you are putting. The only point I have made is that if you use opaque language which is not clear and unambiguous—which is exactly the sort of language you used—you should not be surprised if your comments are interpreted in that way. When you couple it with what had been said by your colleagues—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The minister has completed his personal explanation. He will resume his place.Documents19631963Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPWorkplace Relations and Small Business10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and Hansard.The schedule read as follows—Equal Employment Opportunity (Commonwealth Authorities) Act—Equal Employment Opportunity Program—Australian National Railways Commission (Australian National)—Report for 1996-97.Higher Education Funding Act—Higher education funding for the 1998-2000 triennium—Report by the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.Multilateral Agreement on Investment—Consolidated text, together with attachment—Australia: Revised schedule of preliminary reservations, October 1997.Telstra carrier charges price control compliance 1996—Report of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, February 1998.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs.MG4LEEMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I am trying to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You have given me no notice that you want to make a personal explanation. If you come and tell me you wish to make a personal explanation, I will give you the call. Now I know you do. I will first call the minister.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Have you a point of order?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I have a question I want to ask you. I do not think you have to queue up to ask them, do you?10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—You will sit down. I have called the Minister for Foreign Affairs.Miscellaneous19641964Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—For the information of honourable members, I present the draft Multilateral Agreement on Investment as at 13 February 1998 and Australia's latest revised schedule of preliminary reservations dated October 1997.Personal Explanations196415:23:001964Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Yes.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I claim to have been misrepresented by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) when he again today repeated the claim that I and my colleagues had made dishonest claims in stating that this government had unilaterally abolished the Commonwealth dental health program. He stated today that the basis of his allegation of dishonesty on my part was that the former Labor government intended to abolish the Commonwealth dental health program. I refer him to page 395 of budget paper No. 1 of 1996 that indicates that you claimed a $400 million saving in abolishing the scheme.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I gather that the honourable member for Watson has a question that he wishes to put to me. He as a former Speaker should know the normal practice in this place has been that you put your name on a list and we know you are going to be called.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—That's not so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—It has been in the last 35—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—That has never, ever been so.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—The honourable gentleman should know that, since I have been here, which is somewhat longer than you, it has always been so. Do you wish to put a question to me?4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I do, Mr Speaker.Questions to the Speaker196419641964McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, is it a fact that an SES officer of the Department of the House of Representatives is also fulfilling additional duties as your chief of staff? If this is a fact, why was this officer not taken off line and employed under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984, as has been the practice with all other officers of the department who have worked for Speakers, since you are interested in precedents?1964Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—An officer of the department of the clerk is currently serving as a liaison officer between this House and the Senate. He is not on my staff. He is not employed in the position as an officer on my staff. He is serving as other members of the parliamentary staff do, as a liaison with me, and I have found him very helpful in so doing. He is not replacing any member of my staff nor is he employed in that position.19641964Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to raise a question to you under standing order 150 and it relates to a question I have on the Notice Paper —No. 2196 put there on 3 September 1997 to the Prime Minister. I ask that you write to him requesting him to answer: is it a fact that he said he would never have a part of a goods and services tax and the question appertaining to it?1964Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I take the honourable member's question and I will write accordingly. 19651965Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. Even allowing for the latitude that the Speaker offers to the Leader of the Opposition, day after day we are seeing the Leader of the Opposition rising to take a point of order repeatedly when in fact he is only taking exception to what is being said by the speakers on the government side. I ask you to consider an appropriate form of disciplinary action for the Leader of the Opposition.1965Mr SPEAKERMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—As the honourable member for Bradfield and other members know, some indulgence is given to the Leader of the Opposition, but I have noted on a number of occasions a number of members in this place have risen to make some sort of an intervention which does not necessarily accord with the purpose. Certainly, in attempting to raise points of order there has been a good deal of latitude extended. I suggest that all members take note of the concerns of the honourable member for Bradfield.Matters of Public Importance1965196510000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Prime Minister to keep his personal reassurances to older Australians in relation to health and aged care.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:28:001965Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Who said this: `We want to assert the very simple principle that truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life'? Who said that? The member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the current Prime Minister of Australia, who misled the House this afternoon with his dishonest claims about his statements before and after the last election about federal funding for the Commonwealth dental scheme.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The honourable member will withdraw `dishonest'.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I have simply used exactly the same words that the Prime Minister used about me yesterday.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I was not in the chair yesterday and I am now.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: let me draw to your attention page 1302 of Hansard where the Prime Minister said: `I reject totally any miserable dishonest claim by the member for Dobell.' How can I use exactly the same words and you rule me out of order when the Speaker rules the Prime Minister in order?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have ruled you out of order. I have asked you to withdraw the word `dishonest'.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Is that your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I ask you to withdraw.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Is that your ruling?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—It is not a ruling; it is a request for you to withdraw.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I believe the Prime Minister did make a dishonest claim at question time today. Just as he made the allegation against me, I am making it against him.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Keep going, Michael.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, you will not keep going because yesterday the words used were related to a claim, not to the actual member. I have said that you will withdraw.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Mr Deputy Speaker, if you check the Hansard record, I was very careful—I said the Prime Minister made dishonest claims.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am not going to check. I am telling you right now to withdraw.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I said the Prime Minister made dishonest claims. I am not going to withdraw something I did not say.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You are refusing to withdraw?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Is that your ruling? Is it your ruling that I withdraw?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—If you want to say that; I do not care what you call it. But, from the chair, I am asking the honourable member for Dobell to withdraw the word `dishonest'.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I am not going to withdraw the use of the words, `It was a dishonest claim of the Prime Minister.' That is the wording I used, and I am not going to withdraw something that I did not say.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I give you one more opportunity to withdraw.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Is that your ruling? If you are going to make a ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will have the opportunity to dissent from your ruling, but please make a ruling.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am not making a ruling; I do not have to make a ruling. It is not appropriate to make a ruling of this kind.UNKNOWNOpposition membersOpposition members—You're in the chair.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am in the chair, as is pointed out, and I am asking you to withdraw the word `dishonest'.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The Speaker did not require the Prime Minister to withdraw the use of the word `dishonest' when it was used against me and my claims.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I warn the honourable member for Dobell.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There should be consistency in the rulings from the chair. Yesterday, the precise point that is being canvassed now was canvassed with the Speaker, and the Speaker did not require the Prime Minister to withdraw the words he said about the member for Dobell. If there is to be consistency, and the member for Dobell is using the Prime Minister's own words, then it would seem to be very difficult for you to apply a standard to the member for Dobell which is different to that which your colleague the Speaker applied to the Prime Minister. It would seem that what is sauce for the goose must certainly be sauce for the gander. You have had time for the clerk to give you some different advice now, so I hope he has found a way out of this for you.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Watson for his point of order.8E4WOOLDRIDGEDr Wooldridge—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: I just heard the shadow minister for health say to the Leader of the Opposition, `Will I push him to the edge?' The Leader of the Opposition said, `Yes.' Is this proper for a discussion like this?Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! I would like to say—4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—Can we have a ruling on my point of order first? I have taken a point of order, and until it is disposed of—10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have taken a note of the matter contained in your point of order. I ask the member for Dobell to clarify something for me: did you actually claim that the Prime Minister was dishonest?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—No, I did not. I said that the Prime Minister made dishonest claims—exactly the words he used against me yesterday. Hansard will prove it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thought you said that the Prime Minister was dishonest. That being the case, I accept your assurance. Please continue.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Thank you. We believe that this Prime Minister has not abided by that simple act of faith he declared in the past. These are the past words of the member for Bennelong:We want to assert the very simple principle that truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life.Truth has become disposable in national political life when the member for Bennelong, the Prime Minister of Australia, can give this personal assurance to older Australians before an election and then break that personal assurance once the election is out of the way. This is a letter signed by John Howard, the member for Bennelong, a letter which is headed up `A personal guarantee from John Howard'.4I4McLEAYMr Leo McLeay—It's not worth two bob!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member for Watson might be right. I am sure there are many older Australians in his electorate who took the Prime Minister at his word when he gave that personal guarantee, when he said:I give you my personal guarantee that, under my government, pensions and other social security and veterans' payments and entitlements will not be cut.The Prime Minister gave that personal assurance that pensioners' entitlements would not be cut. But what has happened? We saw the Prime Minister claim yesterday that this assurance governed only the social security and veterans' affairs payments, it covered only the amount of dollars they received in their bank accounts each fortnight; it did not cover their pensioner entitlements. It was very clear in that personal guarantee from John Howard before the last election—and `personal guarantee' is mentioned three times in the letter; you would not want to be a banker taking personal guarantees from the member for Bennelong if he can give three personal guarantees in this letter and then break them once the election is out of the way—but certainly yesterday the Prime Minister sought to argue that in some way he was bound to maintain only the payments to pensioners and he was not bound to maintain their entitlements.One of the reasons we are concerned—this was the chart produced by the Department of Social Security outlining the entitlements which pensioners received under the former Labor government—is that there is a whole list of them here: those who have the pensioner concession card, the health care card and the Commonwealth seniors health card. You can see by the marks we have made on this chart how many of these entitlements have already disappeared under this government in just two budgets.In 1996, a pensioner could obtain a copy of this chart at their local Social Security office. It guaranteed to them free basic dental treatment under the Commonwealth dental health program at public dental hospitals and clinics. That was the guarantee in the chart issued by Social Security. That is what we call an `entitlement'. It is the right to basic, emergency and preventive dental care at the state dental hospitals and through the voucher system at private dental surgeries. What did this government do in its first budget under this Minister for Health and Family Services, the member for Chisholm (Dr Wooldridge)? It abolished the $100 million going into the Commonwealth dental health program. The line we get from the government is that in some way the former Labor government also intended to abolish the Commonwealth dental health program.PG6MACKLINMs Macklin—Wrong!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Dead wrong, as my colleague interjects. The proof of that is in the forward estimates for the 1996 budget where it is quite clear that this government claimed a $400 million saving in abolishing the Commonwealth dental health program. How could the current member for Chisholm, the would-be member for Casey, claim a $400 million saving in the 1996 budget by abolishing the program if, as he claimed, the program was going to be abolished? That exposes just another element of the hypocrisy and dishonest claims that this government has been making in all sorts of areas of dental entitlement.But it is not just the Labor Party that is raising this issue. A whole series of organisations that represent older Australians are going to scream louder and louder as each day passes because the dental waiting lists are growing as a result of the decision of this minister for health and this government to abolish the Commonwealth dental health program.Let me give you the two examples that we raised with the Prime Minister in this House yesterday. An 82-year-old went to the Royal Newcastle Dental Clinic and was told that her case did not constitute an emergency, even though her dental plate was so loose she could not wear it. Her lower teeth had been ground down to gum level, and she could not eat meat or chew. She was in danger of malnutrition, and she was incapable of travelling all the way to Sydney for an appointment with the dental hospital. We asked the Prime Minister why the government is not prepared to reconsider its decision to abolish the Commonwealth dental health program when 82-year-old women are at risk of suffering from malnutrition because this government will not put enough money into the Commonwealth dental health program.HI4MORRISMr Peter Morris—The member for Robertson supports it.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The member for Robertson (Mr Lloyd) does support it. The member for Robertson has not spoken up once in this House about his government's cuts to the Commonwealth dental health program. Here is his chance today to speak up and to call on his government to reconsider its decision to abolish the Commonwealth dental health program. He should know that on the Central Coast today, if someone needs emergency dental care on the weekends, it is no longer available because of his government's cutbacks to the Commonwealth dental health program.The second example we gave yesterday was of a man in his seventies from a rural area who had broken a tooth during the weekend. He was quoted $1,000 to have an acrylic crown inserted by a private dental practitioner. As a pensioner, he could not afford this amount of money. He was referred to the local dental clinic where he was told that he would be on a two-year waiting list—this is a man who has a broken tooth in a rural area—as it was not considered to be an emergency. He was also told that he would need to be not only in pain but also bleeding. Is that the way that Australians would expect a man in his 70s in a rural area to be treated?Again, we gave the example today of Women's Health Victoria expressing concern to the Senate inquiry about people being expected to sell their furniture so they can afford to be treated at a private dental surgery because of the cutbacks that this government has made in the Commonwealth dental health program.Let us have a look at what has happened to the waiting times since the government has abolished the waiting periods. In New South Wales, the waiting period has grown from six months to between four and 58 months. In Victoria, it has gone from 12 months to 16 months. In Queensland, it has now blown out to 10 months. In South Australia, it has grown from 16 months to 22 months. In Western Australia, it has grown from five months to eight months. In Tasmania, it has gone from two years to 30 months. In the ACT, it has gone from three months to 15 to 30 months.Is it any wonder that ordinary Australians are starting to realise the impact that these cutbacks have had on ordinary Australians? When we asked the Prime Minister today which of these entitlements are now left, which of these entitlements are now covered by his personal guarantee to maintain pensioners' entitlements as well as the payments they receive, the Prime Minister told us, `Entitlements only mean things that are governed by law.' Entitlements do not mean your right to emergency dental care. Entitlements do not mean your right to some preventive dental care where you get your teeth filled rather than pulled out. Entitlements do not mean that you are entitled to essential medication at a reasonable price because the Prime Minister has unilaterally redefined what a pensioner entitlement is.We are going to hold the Prime Minister to his personal guarantee. When the Prime Minister sends out this personal guarantee to ordinary Australians, he has an obligation to make sure that that dental health program is restored. He has an obligation to make sure that pensioners are not forced to pay $3.20 for basic essential medication when, under the Prime Minister's personal guarantee, it should still be costing them only $2.70.We are going to ensure that this Prime Minister either restores the funding to the dental health program, overturns the cuts in pharmaceuticals and makes sure that Commonwealth senior health care card holders regain access to hearing aids, or issues not just a personal guarantee to pensioners but also a personal apology to all of those older Australians who believed him at the last election, all of those older Australians who perhaps changed their vote to the coalition at the last election because they believed that personal guarantee from the member for Bennelong.I am sure that all of those people today are very disillusioned that their entitlements have been wiped away by this government through its cutbacks in the Commonwealth dental health program, cutbacks in funding for essential medication, cutbacks in access to Australian Hearing Services and massive federal cutbacks to our public hospital system. Is it any wonder that the Australian public hospital system is in crisis when this government cuts massive amounts from the hospital system, the dental care system and essential medication to pay for its $1.7 billion failed private health insurance tax rebate? We can give every Australian this guarantee: if there is a change of government at the next election, there will be a real difference. (Time expired)15:43:001969Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The real difference will not come from the member for Dobell (Mr Lee). What a shocker! No wonder he wasted the first five minutes with spurious points of order. No wonder he lent over to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and said, `Will I push him to the limit?' meaning push you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the limit. If you have so little to say, I can understand why you are trying to waste time and avoid this MPI. I will talk briefly about dentistry, and then I will just look at the broader issue of campaign promises both of the former government and of this government. I will then talk about some of the long-term things that are happening in health.In dentistry, quite frankly, the Commonwealth dental scheme was a hastily conceived promise by Paul Keating in the dying days of the 1993 election campaign. It was promised for four years. It was promised to treat a certain number of people. It is a program I would have quite liked to have kept going, but we made no commitment to the dental program—as was the case with the former Labor government. It was not mentioned by them in the 1996 election campaign. It was only in the forward estimates, according to the Department of Finance and Administration, because they had made that decision. It was not a conscious decision of the previous government. We could very easily have been fixed, but let us have a look at the words of the Victorian health minister. He said: You can't simply replace 50 per cent of the funding as a result of a Commonwealth decision. In addition to that, it would send a very bad message to the Commonwealth. If any state or territory simply picked up any funding withdrawal, that would only encourage them to withdraw funding from even more programs.There you have it in the words of that state's health minister. It was something you could have fixed. It was something that he understood was the province of the state government, but he chose for political reasons not to do it. That is the dental scheme. The dental scheme has been the province of states for 93 years. It is wholly the province of state governments. Some state governments have chosen to pick it up; other state governments have chosen not to pick it up. If a state government chooses not to pick it up, quite frankly, that is their decision, not the Commonwealth's. Looking at election promises, it is illustrative to have a look at what the Labor Party promised in 1993. I have their health policy in front of me. Let me read out some of the promises the Labor Party made in 1993. One: new initiatives with the private sector for $25 million each year for four years that would be made available to contract to private hospitals elective surgery for public patients on waiting lists. The money was never spent. Two: private hospitals would be included under health services regional planning under the Medicare agreement. It was never done. Three: the aged care industry review would examine the adequacy of nursing staff to meet the increasing dependency of those living in hostels. It was never done. Four: the national rural health program would focus on expanding the rural health centres initiative. It was never done. Five: there would be access to Medicare rebates for bone densiometry for women at risk of developing osteoporosis. It was never introduced for women on a screening basis.Six: the establishment of a national health promotion authority. It was never established. Seven: legislative reform to the National Health Act to ensure Australia's commitment to promotion of health. The legislation was never seen. Eight: provision of language services in public hospitals. The Common wealth never attempted to make that provision even though it was promised. Nine: the establishment of a national health advisory council on ethnic health. The council was never established. Ten: a continuation of the national health strategy. They abolished it the next year. Eleven: the development of a national primary health care policy. That policy was never developed. Twelve: a national environment health strategy. That strategy was never developed.They are just the broken promises of the Labor Party on pages three and four of their policy. So it is rather galling to have the shadow minister for health come in here and talk about broken promises when you can find 12 blatantly broken promises on pages three and four of their 1993 health policy. I am very happy to stand by our record. I will take honourable members through our record of what we promised in health before the last election and what we have delivered. We promised to retain Medicare and bulk billing. We have retained Medicare in its entirety and we have retained bulk billing. Bulk billing levels today are higher than when we were elected to government two years ago. We said we would retain community rating for private health insurance. It has been retained. We said we would retain the Medicare levy at 1.5 per cent. It is at 1.5 per cent today. We said that we would offer incentives to encourage private health insurance. Those incentives have been delivered and make health premiums for older Australians 18 per cent cheaper than what they would be otherwise.We said that we would retain divisions of general practice. They have been retained and they are part of a quarterly process whereby I have regular meetings with general practice. We said we would reallocate the general practice reform strategies better practice program to cover other initiatives in the health portfolio. It was not a popular decision, but we did it. We said we would retain the community pharmacy agreement and continue the isolated and remote pharmacy allowances under the agreement. That has been retained to the benefit of many rural members in this place. We said that pharmacies would act as Medicare agents. This is one of the great initiatives of this government. Something that many rural members can say with pride is that their constituents now have access to Medicare in a way that they did not have previously. Medicare was a system based on cities. It had largely forgotten rural and remote Australia. By 30 June this year we will have 290 Medicare claiming facilities, at a minimum, in and around rural and remote Australia. We have a health throughout life program that, after two years, is starting to show real benefits. We said we would have a major health campaign to increase the number of women who take folic acid through pregnancy. That is under way. Barely five per cent to six per cent of Australian women would have supplemented their diet with folic acid yet folic acid supplementation is a very simple way of preventing spina bifida and other neural tube defects. Spina bifida is a catastrophic condition in children in many cases, although in some cases it can be mild. We can prevent half of that if women who are planning a pregnancy choose to supplement their diets with folic acid. We have Kellogg's and Sanitarium supplementing cereals, all as a result of our health throughout life program. We said we would have a public awareness campaign regarding the benefits of breast feeding, a simple public health preventive measure. That is under way. We said we would have a national immunisation program for mumps, measles and whooping cough to counter the scandalously low rate of immunisation in this country. We were 68th in the Western world when we came to government, which was the second worst in the OECD. The figures for 1997 show that our immunisation rates for kids under 15 months is up to 76 per cent. It is still not good enough, but it is way better than the 53 per cent that was reported for fully completed immunisation under the ABS surveys. A national diabetes action plan is well under way. We promised it; we delivered on it. It is a significant initiative for people with diabetes, a very important segment of the community. Perhaps 350,000 people know they have diabetes; another 350,000 are walking around not knowing they have it but are subject to all the vagaries and difficulties that the complications of diabetes can bring on. The diabetes action plan is something that is offering real hope to insulin dependent people with diabetes and non-insulin dependent diabetes. Through the action plan, we are implementing a national diabetes register that will give researchers over the next 50 years the capacity to undertake research that will give people with diabetes hope. The healthy seniors initiative is in the process of being delivered. There was additional money for the National Health and Medical Research Council for public health research. That has been delivered in the NHMRC budget. The NHMRC research budget is at an all-time historical record. While we are talking about promises, it reminds me of the promise in 1993 that medical research would reach two per cent of health spending. That was, I have to say, delivered by the Labor Party. They stuck it in the forward estimates and they put it in as a four-year initiative so that the money would drop off the next year. It was a deliberate and conscious decision by the previous government to attempt to hoodwink medical research by saying they would put money in to help create a year 2000 spending target but the money only lasted for four years and then dropped off.We have the catastrophic situation at the moment where, if I were to proceed with the forward estimates in medical research, we would be facing a one-third reduction in this country's medical research effort over the next two years. That is the sort of hole I have been left to repair specifically as a result of decisions made by the previous government to try to give with one hand and take with the other.Public health and the National Health and Medical Research Council is being funded in a way and to a level it has never been funded before. We said we would institute a centres of clinical excellence program. That has been delivered. We said we would establish a ministerial council on injury prevention. We have a national injury advisory group working now. We said we would establish hospital outpatient clinics in musculoskeletal medicine. We have provided $7.2 million over three years. That has been delivered. These are very exciting things in public health, preventative health, because our whole health system under the previous government was focused on treating illness, not trying to stop illness in the first place.Musculoskeletal clinics in medicine give us some real chance of getting best practice treatment for people with arthritis, not a particularly fashionable or popular disease but something that causes massive morbidity in this community. We said we would keep life education centres going for primary school education. We have given them $300,000 a year to do it. We said we would continue the national HIV-AIDS strategy. We said we would continue it. We have delivered on that. We have a third strategy now running and with the full cooperation of all the people involved—something this country gets immense credit for. We said we would have a here for life program and allocate $18 million over three years to a national youth suicide strategy. We have delivered on that.We said we would maintain the rural incentives program. We have. To try to address the crisis in rural health we said we would undertake a number of initiatives. We have delivered on them all. The first one was university departments of rural health. We said we would create six. We have announced seven. The first one is up and running in Broken Hill. The next one will be in Mount Isa. This is a real chance for doctors to go out into the bush and have the backup and support, to have the academic focus, that has previously been only in the cities. The money is not going to buildings on city campuses. The money is going to provide services to rural people to give people a chance to take an academic position in rural Australia and not commit academic suicide. Two professors have just been appointed and they are at Broken Hill at the department of rural health.We said we would undertake John Flynn scholarships. There are now 150 medical students on John Flynn scholarships, again, trying to give young doctors a greater expo sure to rural Australia. I met one of the them the other day in the electorate of the member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Nairn). If you expose young people to rural practice early on you have a better chance of having them go to rural areas. By the middle of this year there will be 300 medical students in Australia on John Flynn scholarships—a promise on which we delivered.We have had a locums initiative to try to provide better locum relief. We said we would do it. We have done it. We have delivered it. We said we would study a trial of nurse practitioners for remote areas in our first term of government. That study is under way. We said we would maintain an area of needs scheme. We have delivered on that.The honourable member mentioned the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. In his own words in this House in 1990 he talked about the enormous cost of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and the need to do something about it. All governments have faced that. When Labor faced that in office they had several ways of dealing with it. In the 1995-96 budget they decided arbitrarily they were going to take $45 million out of the pharmaceutical benefits schemes. They did not have any clue how they were going to do it. They asked the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to find $45 million worth of cuts. Or they arbitrarily increased the safety net from $407 to $600 for Australian families—a policy without any logic to it whatsoever; simply an arbitrary cut to the pharmaceutical benefits system.Yes, we have made changes to the pharmaceutical benefits system to make sure it is sustainable. If there is one thing that will benefit older Australians it is having a system that is sustainable. This year with all the changes we are still spending $200 million to $300 million more on the pharmaceutical benefits system than we did in the previous year.We have directed the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs and the Department of Health and Family Services to work on alternative therapies to define training, accreditation and qualification standards. That is under way. We have said we will continue to promote two-yearly pap screening. We have done that. We said we would maintain Commonwealth funded emergency accommodation for victims of violence. We have delivered. We said there would be no real increase in tobacco excise in our first term. We have delivered.I ask any member of the public to compare that with 12 specific broken promises on pages 3 and 4 of the Labor Party election platform for 1993. I am very happy for the public to make that comparison and for us to stand by that.15:58:001972Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am pleased to support the matter of public importance before this House, introduced by my colleague the member for Dobell (Mr Lee). It goes to the heart of the issue: this personal guarantee from the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) sent out to pensioners during the last election campaign.We have just heard 20 minutes from the Minister for Health and Family Services, the honourable member for Chisholm (Dr Wooldridge), but we heard nothing in defence of the personal guarantee of his own Prime Minister. That personal guarantee is there three times. It says that the coalition would maintain the real value of your pension. That has been broken. It says that they will ensure all Commonwealth pensioner concessions stay in place. That has been broken. And just to rub it in, the Prime Minister said to pensioners in the lead-up to the election, `We will keep our word.' They are dishonest claims by the Prime Minister.It is not surprising that the minister has walked away from the Prime Minister in this debate because the minister is walking away from his own electorate of Chisholm. He thinks 2.7 per cent is not a big enough margin. He thinks 6.6 per cent is what he needs.XT4RONALDSONMr Ronaldson—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: that is way, way wide of what is normally general debate. It bears no relevance to the matter of public importance.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the parliamentary secretary.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—I am glad the honourable member across the table believes that the minister's relationship with his own electorate is irrelevant. I am glad that is the case. He therefore agrees with the minister because he also thinks his electorate is irrelevant. That is why he is walking away from it.What we are primarily debating here today is the $400 million cut in funding by this government to the Commonwealth dental health scheme resulting in its abolition. This is not an abstract issue. This is something that is affecting pensioners right across Australia and, in particular, in electorates such as mine. In March last year, I received a letter from Mrs Elsie Stanley of Edwin Street, Tempe. She wrote:I would seek your help in acquiring a dental plate from Dental Hospital which I applied for in June 1996.I applied last time in September 1996. I can understand money is hard for Government funding.But being on Age Pension it is also difficult for me to replace the one I have which is ill fitting and impossible to wear as Dental Hospital removed one of my bottom teeth.I am having difficulty eating as I cannot chew and I am biting the inside of my gum. Elsie StanleyAs a diligent and loyal representative—unlike the minister—of my electorate of Grayndler, I wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the Sydney Dental Hospital on 7 April outlining Mrs Stanley's problem. I wrote:I would be most appreciative if you could consider dealing with Mrs Stanley on a date sooner than is presently planned.I received a letter back on 14 April from Dr Wilkinson, the Director of Dental Services. The letter stated:Due to the high demand, the UDH is currently unable to provide dentures for all patients who need or request them and restrictions have to be placed . . .It was not good enough. I—unlike the member for Chisholm, maybe Casey, maybe somewhere else—am loyal to my constituents. I wrote back to Dr Wilkinson because that was not a good enough response. I wrote:According to Mrs Stanley, upon visiting UDH in June 1996, a gum infection caused the UDH dentist to remove a tooth. Unfortunately, this was the same tooth that Mrs Stanley's plate clipped onto. Mrs Stanley formed the opinion that the UDH, having removed this tooth, would undertake to provide her with a new one to fit the (by now) expanded gap. To this point, Mrs Stanley's expectations seem reasonable.What member of the House would say that this is not a reasonable expectation of a pensioner in my electorate in the working class suburb of Tempe? I got a letter back. I am diligent in looking after those in my electorate. Perhaps the member for Chisholm could take note that this is how you keep your margin. Dr Wilkinson wrote on 7 May 1997:As I previously explained there is a need to place fairly stringent priorities on the provision of dentures. Where one person is accepted it obviously would mean that another person's treatment would need to be delayed.He made an appointment for Mrs Stanley on 14 June 1997 to facilitate her getting treatment. This is the case of a woman, a pensioner, in my electorate who from June 1996 until June 1997 has had a tooth removed and no bottom plate and who wrote to me as her local member—and I am happy to table this letter—out of desperation because she cannot eat. That is the sort of result of this government's careless, heartless, mean spirited, shameful legislation.JK6McCLELLANDMr McClelland—Dishonest!R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—And, of course, dishonest legislation. It is a breach of the direct promise John Howard gave in writing to pensioners throughout Australia when he was Leader of the Opposition. It is not just that, of course; it goes further. We have the pharmaceutical benefits scheme where the concessional co-payment has been increased from $2.70 to $3.20. We have the impact of the delisting of a number of pharmaceuticals in the PBS in last year's budget. We also have cuts to Australian Hearing Services which mean hearing aids are no longer available to holders of the Commonwealth seniors health card. The list goes on and on.This is combined with the fact that older Australians will particularly suffer from this government's failed attempt to increase private health insurance by providing subsidies worth $1.7 billion. At the same time, it has taken out $800 million from the public hospital system in Australia which, at the end of the day, is what all Australians, but particularly older Australians, rely on as the fundamental basis of our health system. It is not just that, but the combination of all these changes. Mandy Leveratt from the Brotherhood of St Laurence said:Our research has found that low income earners seek pain relief and antibiotics from their doctors because they cannot afford the cost of dental treatment. We also found that the introduction of a co-payment meant that people were having to choose between paying their rent or buying food, and their dental needs.That is exactly what has occurred in Mrs Stanley's case. She is being hit by the cuts to the Commonwealth dental health scheme and if she tries to get pharmaceuticals to remove the pain she is hit again. She is being hit over and over again by this heartless government. The list goes on. Because of the cutbacks to the Commonwealth dental health scheme there is increased pressure on every form of dental service.Another family of two unemployed people and three children came into my electorate office. The children have a congenital dental problem which means that they need braces and dental assistance. The first two children were able to get that assistance because they were lucky enough to need it prior to March 1996. Under the Labor government they were able to get support. The third child is unable to get support because of the pressure that has been placed on the system by this government's cuts.If you look throughout the schemes, you have opposition not just from the Labor Party. You have the formation of `Bite back', which consists of the National Farmers Federation—the friends of the government over there on some other occasions—the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Australian Dental Association. The list goes on and on. Another group, the Retirement Incomes Conference, has banded together to fight this. It includes the RSL and Westpac retired officers. Across the board there is great opposition to this scheme. There is one other lot of funding cuts to pensioners: by stopping funding to the Australian Pensioners and Superannuants Federation, they have lost their ability to complain and fight back against the government's cuts. (Time expired)16:08:001974Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—I rise to support the Minister for Health and Family Services (Dr Wooldridge) on this scurrilous MPI. I find it absolutely amazing that these people can get up there and say the things that they do. We have been listening to a tirade for the last five minutes about the dental health system. The dental health system is a state issue and has been for the past 93 years. I do not know why we as a Commonwealth government are being blamed for the problems of the Carr government.In Australia today, good government amounts to responding not only to the needs and the desires of the whole population but also to a range of environment forces, not the least of which are economic ones. Good government recognises traditional culture bias in Australia towards private enterprise and free choice. Furthermore, it is based on sound economic management. A Labor government may have introduced universal health care but, as I have said before in this House, they do not have a mortgage on social justice policy. In fact, left in the hands of Labor, the policy foundered because of poor implementation. Cost controls and market demand are foreign concepts to ideology and the Labor government failed to appreciate that social experiments have been abandoned worldwide because of their failure. Those who are foolish enough to criticise this government are indicted by their own dearth of proposals bearing any reference to incentive or promotion in health or aged care.I would just like to refer to a press release that was put out by our minister on 24 March in relation to private health insurance and the fact that it was blocked in the Senate. Had the bill, as the minister said, not been delayed by Labor it would have been possible for it to have been passed this week, as the Senate program gives priority to bills which are deemed non-controversial and are brought on at the earliest opportunity. This decision by Labor means the bill will not be discussed in the Senate until late May or early June. This is the politics almost of the indefensible: holding up reforms that the Labor Party supposedly supports just so a handful of boring Labor senators can have their 15 minutes of whingeing or moaning and criticising our incentive scheme for helping 1.2 million people pay their private health insurance premiums.The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley), the shadow minister and Labor cannot be taken seriously when they hold up measures they supposedly support for purely political reasons. The decision goes against everything the shadow minister told parliament only three weeks ago and suggests that either he misled the House on 5 March or he has been rolled by his so-called leader who just wants to play politics and has abandoned all principles on health.I would also like to refer to a press release released today by my state minister, the Hon. Mike Horan. He was complaining about the failed previous federal member for Lilley and Queensland Labor, who were guilty of using elderly residents at Eventide Nursing Home at Sandgate for purely political reasons. For the past two years, this former member and the Labor Party have been running a disgraceful political campaign of lies about funding and substandard care at Eventide, deliberately causing concern amongst staff, elderly residents and their families. Eventide Nursing Home receives more funding than any other nursing home in Queensland and the staff who have been working there have been providing first-class care.Earlier, a member spoke about the funding to public hospitals. In my own state of Queensland, $38 million for aged care, capital improvements and state owned nursing homes and public hospitals has been added to the budget. Also, there has been an increase in funding to allow about 8,000 more elderly Queenslanders to receive home care help services, further increasing the total number of elderly Queenslanders receiving home help care to 94,000. How people could say that we are not supporting and not providing for the aged and older people of Australia is beyond me.Labor governments fundamentally do not understand and cannot manage policy applic able to private enterprise. They do not acknowledge the economic market culture that Australians have chosen since this nation began. They are stuck in a time warp. They would have all of us consume the same public goods and services produced at spiralling costs. It is time they were woken up from their Rip Van Winkle-like sleep and took a look at the real world today.The would-be alternative Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition—as former Minister for Finance not only ignored the findings of the Gregory report in 1994 but thought it was a good idea to cut capital funds to nursing homes. He had no policy then; he has no policy now. How can he reassure the people of Australia that he will care for them when he has ignored the most damning report that has ever been tabled in this place? Then, to cap it all off, he acknowledged it by cutting capital funding.I would also question why he was allowed to be Minister for Finance when he cannot even do simple arithmetic. In Cairns recently, the Leader of the Opposition stated that if he were elected to government he would provide $150 million a year for the next four years for aged care—a total, as I work it out, of about $600 million. I have no problems with that except that his shadow minister—the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin), sitting opposite—said that in government the Labor party would put $500 million into aged care over four years. Where, oh where, has the $100 million gone? Where, oh where, is it coming from? Who do we believe: the former Minister for Finance, who was so mean as to cut funds to aged care, or the shadow minister, who has already cut $100 million from her leader's guesstimate?This is a party in confusion. Talk about the failure of the Prime Minister to reassure older Australians—what about your failure to reassure older Australians? What are you offering? We are offering $850 million over the next four years for capital improvement in aged care. The best you can do is $500 million or maybe $600 million, depending on what you believe. We have won the capital investment race without any real competition.If your record is anything to go on, the $500 or $600 million will probably end up being $400 million—same old faces, same old policy and the same results: hospitals understaffed, waiting lists, no rural medical services, poor quality aged care facilities and only half our children immunised. What will we get? We will get more of the same. What was it like in 1994-95? It was hopeless. That was why we saw you being swept out of office in 1996. It was the people's response to your health and aged care policies.This government has introduced a plan that will allow nursing home residents the option of renting their homes and having the rental income exempt from pension income tests and from calculation of daily fees. This policy has directed benefits to pensioners. It allows pensioners to keep the family home, it gives them the peace of mind of knowing that some day they may be able to return to their homes and it provides them with a cash flow that does not affect their pensions. No-one will have to sell their home to enter a nursing home.Pensioners will pay tax on their rental home income. However, as taxpayers, they become eligible for a tax rebate of 20c in the dollar on their health care costs that exceed $1,250. They will receive this because, as a result of lots of hard work and talking between our minister and our colleagues, we have been able to get the daily care fees for nursing homes considered as a legitimate health care cost and, therefore, tax deductible.Over the course of a year a resident's daily fees are approximately $7,700. Factor in the 20 per cent tax medical rebate and the $1,250 deduction will be returned to the nursing home resident at the end of the financial year. It must be remembered that this $1,250 is only a base, and the figure does not take into account any related health costs such as medicines or visits to the doctor. I think everyone in this House will agree that a minimum tax rebate of $1,250 as well as a steady rental income will go a long way towards contributing to a person's accommodation charge. This deduction under the medical expenses rebate is a significant relief for pensioners and their families.This government's policy addresses today's problems and ensures quality care for the future. We have acted where Labor failed. Future generations of Australians will not inherit a $10 billion debt. This government will not stand by and let those of our aged population who are in need of nursing care suffer the indignity of living in substandard accommodation.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has not only given the aged of Australia and those who must access our health systems reassurance but also delivered on his promise of a better deal for all Australians. The Liberal Party understands the need for strategic direction and is not afraid to give birth to new ideas. It is ready to ride the waves of change, while Labor would have this country washed up on the sand.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Committees1976197619761976Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 6 April 1998. The report will be printed in today's Hansard and the items accorded priority for debate will be published in the Notice Paper for the next sitting.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 6 April 1998Pursuant to sessional order 28D, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private Members' business on Monday, 6 April 1998. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Report on review of relations with ASEAN. The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 10 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.2 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE SIXTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ASIA PACIFIC PARLIAMENTARY FORUM, SEOUL, REPUBLIC OF KOREA: Report of Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the sixth annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 7-10 January 1998.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 10 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.3 TREATIES—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: 13th Report—Treaties tabled on 25 November 1997 and 3 March 1998.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within a total time of 10 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.4 NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY—JOINT COMMITTEE : Report on evaluation of the National Crime Authority.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made—all statements to be made within the time remaining for committee and delegation reports.Speech time limits—Each Member—5 minutes.PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mr Zammit to present a Bill for an Act concerning airports in the Sydney area.2Mrs Bailey to move:That this House:(1) expresses its concern at the number of bank branches which have been closed in both rural and outer suburban areas;(2) calls on the major banks to honour their responsibility to provide services to their customers and the community as well as delivering dividends to their shareholders;(3) further calls on the major banks to adopt a moratorium on any further planned branch closures until such time that alternative services are made available to their customers and that their customers are educated in electronic banking practices;(4) endorses the Standing Committee on Financial Institutions and Public Administration's investigation into the feasibility of the major banks providing a combined banking kiosk or agency capable of delivering full banking facilities in areas where no bank exists because of branch closure;(5) urges the Government to ensure that departments and agencies are able to utilise alternative banking arrangements such as regional banks, building societies or credit unions where applicable; and(6) notes and supports the Government's financial support of the Credit Care program in rural areas which has provided the means to re-establish financial services through regional banks, credit co-ops and building societies in areas where the major banks have withdrawn services.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes. Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Orders of the day1EMPLOYEE PROTECTION (WAGE GUARANTEE) BILL 1998: Second reading.Time allotted—30 minutes.Speech time limits—Each Member—15 minutes.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Notices— continued3Mr Pyne to move:That this House:(1) agrees that former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating's unsuccessful attempt to implement substantial tax reform in 1985 was an acknowledgment of the contemporary failings of the taxation system;(2) recognises that the former Labor Government failed over 13 years to implement substantial tax reform;(3) agrees that the Government's achievement in fixing Labor's $10 billion budget black hole proves that this Government has the resolve and the courage to implement significant and sensible taxation reform; and (4) notes that the Opposition has no plans for substantial taxation reform and favours a return to the tax and spend policies of the past that led to high interest rates, high unemployment and low growth that had it been allowed to go unchecked could have dangerously exposed Australia in the environment of an Asian financial crisis.Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time.Speech time limits—Mover of motion—10 minutes.First Opposition Member speaking—10 minutes.Other Members—5 minutes each.The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.1978197816:19:001978Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the following reports: Report 358—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97—Third Quarter and Report 359—Review of Auditor-General's reports 1996-97—Fourth Quarter .Ordered that the reports be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—The main purpose of these reports is to inform parliament that hearings have been held by the committee to examine various reports of the Auditor-General. I propose to highlight those aspects of the audit reports examined about which the committee has the most concern.I turn first to Report 358—Review of Auditor-General's Reports 1996-97—Third Quarter. A public hearing was held on 7 May 1997 to take evidence on four reports of the Auditor-General selected by the committee for closer scrutiny. Audit reports Nos 22 and 25 concerned client service in the Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security. The committee canvassed a number of issues at its public hearing on these reports, including:. the development of the Taxpayers' Charter;. the effectiveness of new complaints procedures in the tax office;. the effect of the Tax Pack on self-lodgement by taxpayers;. customer service policies in the Commonwealth Service Delivery Agency;. agencies' awareness of the need to develop services for indigenous Australians; and. agencies' efforts to improve staff training and standards of service to the public.The committee acknowledges the positive and constructive attitude displayed in this audit by the tax office, the Department of Social Security and the Australian National Audit Office. In particular, the committee welcomes the development of the Taxpayers' Charter. The charter was first advocated by the JCPAA in 1993 in report 326 on the committee's review of the tax office.The committee recommends that a detailed report be provided in the half-yearly portfolio statements on the progress of the development of client-customer oriented services in the tax office and the Department of Social Security.Audit report No. 23, on the recovery of the proceeds of crime, was selected for audit by the audit office because recoveries appeared low relative to the estimate of the total proceeds of crime. Recoveries from the proceeds of crime are indeed significantly less than were expected when the Commonwealth proceeds of crime legislation was enacted. However, the committee considers it risky to speculate about the proportion of the total proceeds of crime which fall within the Commonwealth's jurisdiction when the figures for the total proceeds of crime are themselves only estimates.An issue that drew the attention of the committee was that the National Crime Authority and the Australian Federal Police were unable to provide the committee with accurate details on the amounts recovered by their agencies. The committee recommends that agencies associated with the recovery of the proceeds of crime jointly develop procedures to ensure that all proceeds recovered are clearly identified and attributed to the appropriate agency.Audit Report No. 27: Army presence in the north, assessed the effectiveness and efficiency of Army's management of the move of 1st Brigade to Darwin as part of the APIN project. The findings of the audit report concern ing Army's failure to adequately estimate operating costs and to clearly track expenditure throughout the project convinced the committee that much remains to be done by Defence to reform its financial management systems.Misjudgments over training arrangements in the north require the unforeseen return, on an annual basis, of a squadron of Leopard tanks from Darwin to Puckapunyal. The committee considers that this, in addition to the effect of the climate extremes on tank crews and equipment, poses a risk to operational readiness. The committee recommends that Defence provide details on the progress of the development of appropriate training facilities in the Northern Territory and the installation of airconditioning in the Leopard tanks, which, we understand, is in progress.I now turn to the committee's report No. 359. Two reports of the Auditor-General were the focus of the fourth quarterly public hearing for 1996-97 held on 25 July 1997. These were Audit Report No. 34: Australian Defence Force health services and Audit Report No. 36: Commonwealth natural resource management and environment programs. Report 359 focuses on the main issues raised during the public hearings.Following its examination of Audit Report No. 34: Australian Defence Force health services, the committee makes five recommendations. The committee recommends that Defence: take prompt action to implement the accounting and financial management reforms proposed in the report of the defence efficiency review; undertake an assessment of the merits and implications of a member contribution for health services additional to those required for the maintenance of individual readiness or outside Defence's duty of care to its employees; undertake a detailed costing of all defence hospitals and medical centres, and rationalise the provision of beds where their cost exceeds the cost of beds in equivalent civilian facilities, and where their retention cannot be justified on preparedness and operational grounds; take steps towards sourcing its requirement for dentists from outside the full-time Defence Force; and, lastly, urgently develop and implement short- term strategies aimed at reducing the current level of injuries to forces personnel.The second audit report looked at by the committee in report 359 was Audit Report No. 34: Commonwealth natural resource management and environment programs. It is clear from this audit report on land and conservation programs that work needs to be done to ensure the efficient and effective expenditure of Natural Heritage Trust funds.The committee raised a number of issues in report 359 which have implications for the Natural Heritage Trust, including: setting realistic and concise operational objectives for programs; establishing appropriate and uniform performance indicators for programs; strengthening the needs assessment process to ensure that Natural Heritage Trust funds are well targeted; and ensuring that reporting requirements for community grants meet accountability requirements without alienating those whose efforts are needed to achieve program objectives.The committee recommends that the Department of Primary Industries and Energy and Environment Australia liaise with the states to ensure that appropriate and uniform performance indicators for the Natural Heritage Trust programs are developed and effectively applied.I conclude by thanking, on behalf of the committee, those people who contributed their time and expertise to the JCPAA's review hearings upon which these two reports are based. The JCPAA has been appreciative of the cooperation it has received from the agencies involved.I am also indebted to my colleagues on the committee who have dedicated much time and effort to reviewing these Auditor-General's reports. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiries: Dr Margot Kerley, the JCPAA secretary, Ms Jennifer Hughson and Ms Tiana Gray. I commend the reports to the House.16:27:001979Beddall, David, MPMr BEDDALLQE4RankinALP00—by leave—I rise in support of the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Charles), the chairman of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, and to support the remarks he made in tabling reports 358 and 359 which, as we have just heard, are the reports on the Auditor-General's reports 1996-97 third and fourth quarters.I would like to acknowledge the good work of all my colleagues on the committee in looking at areas like client service in the Australian Taxation Office and the Department of Social Security. I am sure that all members would agree that nearly all constituents would find the service delivery of the ATO and DSS important to their daily lives.As all members would know, these two departments provide important services to the broad Australian community. Essentially, audit reports Nos 22 and 25 sought to improve the quality of service delivery to clients of these two departments. The committee found that these agencies have made some good progress in client service delivery but that, as always, more needs to be done. The committee has outlined many key recommendations which will assist many within the broad Australian community as a result of this inquiry.The audit reports on the proceeds of crime and the Army's presence in the north provided the committee with an opportunity to make recommendations which will assist with efficient use of public monies. I found it interesting in the inquiry into the northern presence of the Army that we have moved the Army north but we have to keep bringing it backwards and forwards. Perhaps that needs to be redressed quickly and solved by the Department of Defence. Once more, they are sorry and it will happen soon. We believe them.Report 359 of the JCPAA contains advice to the department on the 12 audit reports presented to the Auditor-General for the fourth quarter of 1996-97. Briefly, as we have heard, the most significant was Audit Report No. 34, the report on the Australian Defence Force health services. The committee found that the total cost of the ADF health services is around $400 million per annum, a figure much higher per capita than that of the Australian community at large. You would expect it to be, but certainly there are areas of high concern about the expenditure on dental services in particular as they were provided to the ADF. There is an old saying that an army marches on its stomach. We got the impression that they march on their teeth.The committee's review of environment programs administered by the Department of Primary Industries and Energy looked at the implications of the administrative processes for expenditure of the somewhat controversial Natural Heritage Trust. I am sure the minister will take note of the recommendations of the committee, as they are sensible and will make the scheme more efficient. Like the chairman, I too would like to thank the committee members who participated and the staff for their continuing good work. I commend the reports to the House.16:30:001980Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—by leave—Reports 358 and 359 cover the public hearings of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit conducted in the last half of 1998 on six investigations by the Auditor-General reviewing a diversity of subjects ranging from tax to defence to the environment to the proceeds of crime. In the brief time available to me I would like to focus on the Australian Defence Force health services report.The provision of ADF health services is a substantive and financially important matter. The Australian National Audit Office estimated that the cost associated with ADF health care was in the order of $400 million, and this is a conservative figure. The indicative cost for the naval health service, as estimated by Defence itself, was some 42 per cent higher than the ANAO estimate. So, overall, the cost of defence health probably falls between $470 million and $520 million of expenditure per year. That is the equivalent of around 10 per cent of what the Commonwealth government spends on public hospitals.Per capita, ADF health service expenditure is almost three times the Australian average; and ADF per capita expenditure on dental services was more than eight times the average Australian community cost.The public hearings did indicate that there was limited awareness of the magnitude of defence expenditures on health. Indeed, the Surgeon-General expressed surprise at how much Defence spent on health. The rationale for ADF health expenditure and its levels is the operational imperative of being able to support our forces in conflict situations. Given this, it is important to note that the ANAO report states:The lack of surgeons and anaesthetists in the permanent forces results in most trauma and emergency cases being referred to public hospitals—. . . . . . . . .From a preparedness perspective, the ANAO considers that a major shortcoming of the ADF health services in peacetime is the lack of experience in treating trauma and emergency cases at ADF facilities.This view was confirmed in discussions with ADF professional medical personnel. Similarly, the number of dental personnel was hugely in excess of defence policy directive 407, a situation which witnesses at the public hearing were at a loss to explain.Nonetheless, despite this, there does appear to be an increase in the number of ADF personnel with outstanding dental care—outstanding meaning not `superb' but `not carried out'—and a lowering of the oral health of Army personnel. This does increase the likelihood of dental casualties during conflict and does impact on the preparedness of the army. The JCPAA makes recommendations addressing these and a number of other issues. I thank the secretariat and my fellow members on the JCPAA and I commend the report to the House.1981Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4LaTrobeLP10—I move:That the House take note of the papers.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Miscellaneous1981Motion (by Mr Andrew) agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration: Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 Social Security and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Pension Bonus Scheme) Bill 1998 Bills1981r4541981Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Dr Kemp:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Ms Macklin moved by way of amendment:That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) forcing poor families on as little as $23,500 per annum to support their young unemployed adults following the introduction of a parental income test on unemployment benefits for those aged between 18 and 21 from 1 July 1998;(2) completely abolishing unemployment benefits for young unemployed adults living in families earning more than $42,000 per annum and forcing parents to find an extra $87 a week to support their adult offspring;(3) adding insult to injury by labelling families caught in the parental income test, `well-off';(4) cutting funding to the nation's secondary schools at the same time as young people under 18 will be forced back to school to receive the Youth Allowance;(5) failing to provide the same incentives for young unemployed people to work part-time as it has provided to students;(6) failing to reduce youth unemployment; and(7) handing responsibility for the costs of youth unemployment back onto the nation's parents making them pay the price for unacceptable levels of youth unemployment".16:36:001981Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—It is a great pleasure to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 . This is good news for the Mallee constituency and good news for country people—country students and country parents. It is something we have waited for for a long time. I listened with some disappointment to the comments of members of the opposition on this legislation. In their heart of hearts they understand that the whole Austudy student support system is an absolute mess.I came to this parliament in 1993 with a clear objective—to do something about aged care. But I discovered, through those three long years in opposition, what a disaster Austudy was for rural students. With all the well-meaning intentions of the prior government—and I am not a churlish person—it needed an overhaul. There are five separate allowances in this very important area for young people under the age of 25: Austudy for students under 25 years of age, the youth training allowance, newstart allowance, sickness allowance for under 21-year-olds and more than minimum rate family payment for secondary students aged 16 to 18. In the five years that I have been in this parliament, parents have come to me time and time again and have said that the support for younger members of their families is a disaster.I was encouraged to hear the comments by the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) with respect to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997, which we dealt with last evening and which came to the parliament late in 1997. She made some generous comments about some amendments that have subsequently been made to that legislation. I was encouraged that something as sensible as the government has adopted in this legislation was having at least some degree of support from members of the opposition. Sometimes I wonder to myself when a minister of the government, from our side, could come into this chamber and say, `What a wonderful blue sky it is,' how the opposition would want to have a debate about it. The amendment that has been moved by the member for Jagajaga says:That all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: `whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading . . . Then we have a churlish three points about allegations where the opposition assume this legislation is not going to deliver. I can assure the opposition that it will deliver. This legislation has been favourably received by a rural and isolated constituency like mine—one package to cover all of the options. I add my enthusiastic support to these measures.It is intended that the youth allowance become a new social security payment which will cover unemployed people aged 16 to 20 and students until the age of 25 years. What has been so favourably received by my constituency is the generous provision of rent assistance. This is the inequity that country students and their parents have had to contend with. Even sometimes for the right level of secondary education, students have to leave and go to a metropolis or a provincial centre. It certainly applies at the tertiary level because there are very few campuses located in rural Australia.This is the ingredient that has been so well received by my constituency and, therefore, is enormously good news and is something of a relief to them because they have not had it delivered for a decade. In fact, what has been delivered has been more complication, more complexity and, therefore, more confusion.The legislation confirms the intention to bring about a number of changes, and other speakers have addressed this in the debate that has ensued. But I want to focus entirely on the good news. Youth allowance will bring consistency, efficiency and flexibility in the current arrangements for payments to young people. People will no longer have to move between payment types just because their circumstances change.We live in an era when the educational needs of young people have changed dramatically. If we are going to embrace this exciting new century, we need to have young people entering the work force with skills that are applicable to whatever part of the work force they enter. It is a nonsense that a 16-year-old today can hopefully look forward to gainful employment for the rest of their life travels. The world has changed. When we compare ourselves with many of our near neighbours—we have an urgent need to continue to do business with them—we are going to need people in the work force, especially youngsters, coming through with a career direction founded on a good training basis.I have listened carefully to and taken note of the contributions from members of the opposition. But, instead of seeing some humility which admits to the fact that in government the members of the Labor Party, now in opposition, were not able to deliver and says, `We tried valiantly. What we did was to impose upon you this very complicated inflexible system. We now support the government with this new initiative,' it is very sad when members of the opposition do what the derivative of the word opposition means—that is, oppose, oppose, oppose. Every now and again, it is good politics to say, `This is a good idea and it has our enthusiastic support.'I say again that my constituency does consider that this is good policy. The youth allowance will create incentives for students to complete school or move into training or other educational opportunities, and that is a key here. It is not saying to those parents out there in the underprivileged underclass, if you like, that we expect you to support your own children. It is creating an incentive for people to stay in their schooling and to acquire skills so that we can progress as a nation and have a reliable, trained and skilled work force. That is a slightly different step from what we have seen in the past.It is true that there is parental means testing. One of the other things that the government struggles with is the need for this nation to balance its books. That is something that the opposition fails to give us any credit for. It wants to continue to play politics on what has been a very responsible approach to the management of the debt and fiscal policy of our nation because, unless we have an environment where interest rates are low, which is a response to responsible fiscal management, we will not have private enterprise and business prospering in order to create the jobs for these young people in the first place. I am delighted to see, at this stage of our history, interest rates at the lowest level they have been since we moved to decimal currency in the middle 1960s.I came to this parliament as a small business person, with a professional business, smarting from the fact that I had to pay 26½ per cent interest on my overdraft. I used to have to use that overdraft to pay the people I was employing. I resented the imposition that placed upon my business and its capacity to employ more people. Over a quarter of one's income went to deliver interest payments on an overdraft. That is not the kind of environment in which business can prosper.Imposed over this initiative and in parallel with it are all the other things that the government has to do because there has not been responsible management of our finances in the past. Apparently, a number of speakers wish to have the opportunity to make a contribution. There is lot more that I would like to say, but I am being hurried up by the government whip. To my constituency I say: this is good news and I am very pleased and proud to be part of delivering it.16:46:001983Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6NamadgiALP00—The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 contains the consequential amendments for youth allowance and also creates a new Austudy payment under the Social Security Act which will replace the Austudy scheme for students under the age of 25. Many of the provisions relating to the new Austudy payment are similar to those in place under the Austudy scheme, with certain modifications to bring them into line with the new youth allowance.As previous speakers have mentioned, the Labor opposition has a number of concerns with the harsh means testing of this new Austudy payment. Firstly, the definition of `income' for the purposes of the personal income test is no longer `taxable income' as it was under Austudy but `ordinary income'—that is, gross weekly income—as it is under other social security payments. In practice, this will mean that students will not be able to qualify for the payment via legitimate income deductions.Secondly, the bill provides that a student's entitlement will be reduced by 50c for each dollar earned between $230 and $310 and by 70c for each dollar earned over $310. This proposal brings the Austudy payment into line with existing income test provisions relating to allowances under the Social Security Act, but it is significantly harsher than the current Austudy income test. Thirdly, a student will lose 70c of Austudy payment for each dollar by which their spouse's income exceeds the spouse income-free area. Again, this is similar to the treatment of spouse's income in respect of social security allowances but is significantly harsher than the current Austudy provision.In speaking to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997 last year, I pointed out that in my electorate there are an unacceptable number of families who are financially strapped, families who are finding life under this oppressive conservative government very difficult. In my electorate and in the ACT at large, the number of people who, if they are in employment, have tenuous job security is far too high. They have fairly pessimistic views of their ability to gain employment should they become unemployed right now or in fact attempt to enter the work force. Youth unemployment in Canberra has been very high for a very long time. It bounces between 30 and 50 per cent. Fortunately, it has not been up to 50 per cent in recent months, but it is still consistently bouncing around the 30 to 40 per cent rate.What is this government's response? The government is saying to young people in Australia through these sorts of actions and this policy, `If you do not want to stay at school, we know better, we are going to force you to. If you need financial assistance to survive, your only choice is going to be to go to your family. We are not interested in the social circumstances of your family. We do not want to know whether there are reasons why it may be difficult for you to rely on your parents' support. We do not care whether you believe that your family may already be facing financial stress. We are just going to withdraw income support. In the meantime, get back to school and stay there. You will be happy during this experience and you will be successful at the end of it.'There is no doubt that Labor wants to see young Australians off welfare. We have no debate about that and we will defend our position on that. We have no question about it, but we do not want it done in the way that is being proposed by the Howard government with this youth allowance. To abolish unem ployment benefits for 16- and 17-year-olds whilst also slashing educational opportunities is the wrong way to reform the welfare state. To have the income test placed upon families with 18- to 20-year-olds coming into effect at annual income levels of $23,350 is the wrong way to reform the welfare state.Some members opposite—but not all—sometimes glibly dismiss the legitimate concerns raised during this debate. They have told all young Australians that if their families cannot afford to support them that is a bit tough but the government is not going to do it. A family income of $23,350 is not high. It is pretty drastic to say to an 18- to 20-year-old who is somehow trying to make their way in life that they have no choice but to go cap in hand to a family which is probably already financially stretched.I am also conscious of the time, but in closing I want to make the following comments. I believe that it is important to remind the Australian people what this legislation and the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997 are really designed to do. The government is withdrawing income support for 18- to 20-year-olds in families with incomes as low as $23,400 per annum and abolishing payments for 16- and 17-year-olds, while at the same time attacking educational funding, labour market assistance and job opportunities. I am sure that, in the coming months, we will hear more in this place about the job employment market programs.The Liberal's youth allowance arrangements will hurt families, particularly low income families. The picket-fence view of family life held by the Prime Minister (Mr Howard)—that is, the view that everything behind that front picket fence is really rosy and charming—is not a reality for a lot of Australian families. The government appears to believe that if you force young people to stay at school longer they will happily and successfully emerge from that process as well-qualified, happy, successful people who automatically walk into a job or a career.However, there is a real world out there, and you cannot assume that by setting these extremely stringent rules you can successfully interfere in the lives and relationships of Australian families. I deplore the government's actions on the youth allowance. There will be a huge price to pay in the community as a result; a price that will be paid by 16- to 17-year-olds who have not finished year 12 and who are looking for work, and by 18- to 20-year olds who are unable to find work.It is not the fault of young people that they cannot secure employment. It is up to us, our society collectively, to ensure the work is there for them to secure. We should not go down this road of blaming the sufferer or the victim. The young people and their families will be paying a price over this bad policy. I condemn the government for failing to introduce education and training opportunities so that every young Australian has access to the education and skills needed for full participation in the workplace and in our society.I want to close by noting some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Mallee (Mr Forrest). I have high regard for his committee work in this place, but I have to say—not against him personally, but against this policy—it is not good policy; it is bad policy. It is putting downward blame on people. Not everybody comes out of a little machine designed to stay at school for as long as we want them to. I would like to think that every 16-year-old in this country wants to, and is happy to, remain at school. But not all of them can. The perfect world that this government would like to think exists does not. So do not penalise those who do not happen to fit that perfect mould.I will be continuing to campaign strongly in my current electorate of Namadgi and in the new electorate of Canberra in the lead-up to the next election against this government's youth allowance. I deplore and condemn this bad public policy. It is purely saving money and is putting wrong emphasis on the wrong people for the wrong reasons.16:54:001985Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I speak in support of the second reading amendment that has been moved by my colleague the honourable member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Conse quential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 . This bill is designed to complete the administrative arrangements flowing from the introduction of the youth allowance. It contains some undesirable changes for students aged 25 and over. It is those changes that I will make the main focus of my remarks.The bill establishes an Austudy payment in the Social Security Act that provides income support for students, moving legislative responsibility for students away from the DEETYA portfolio in line with the youth allowance arrangements. On 30 June this year it is intended that DEETYA will make its final payment to Austudy recipients. I understand that special transitional arrangements have been made and no-one should be out of pocket because of the change in administrative procedures, but students receiving Austudy may be out of pocket for other reasons.Changes to the rate at which their entitlement tapers off once their income exceeds a certain level could actually leave students $73 a fortnight worse off. Currently, students can earn $6,000 of personal income, after which their Austudy entitlement reduces by 50c for each extra dollar earned. Under the new arrangements, only the first $80 of additional income is reduced at the rate of 50 per cent; after that the reduction will be 70c for each dollar of income. This change will reduce the point at which the Austudy entitlement ceases altogether from some $17,800 per annum in personal income to below $16,000. Similar provisions will apply to the income of partners of Austudy recipients, with losses of up to $68 a fortnight at a partner income level of around $25,000 per annum.The arrangements are being brought into line with the rules currently applying to various social security payments, but this initiative, however, represents bad news for students already hard hit by this government's changes—students who are feeling the impact of the half billion dollar cuts to Austudy imposed by the government. These changes will also affect students receiving youth allowance payments, but they will impact more heavily on older students because the government has decided that rent assistance is not required once students turn 25. The member for the National Party seat who spoke earlier in the debate, the member for Mallee (Mr Forrest), and made the point about rent assistance really should have pointed out that the capping of that provision at age 25 is not going to benefit that large number of rural and regional mature age students who are seeking a higher education, seeking to advance their skills.Any reduction in entitlement will not be ameliorated by the expanded availability of rent assistance—that is, the government is certainly taking with one hand much more than it is giving in rent assistance for students 25 and under. My office has not been able to obtain either from the minister's office or from the department information about how many students will be affected by the new tapering arrangements. Again we find confusion in the administration of the Howard government with regard to student income support. One assumes that we will know these things some time after 1 July, when these new arrangements cut in. Some students who began the academic year on the assumption of a certain level of entitlement throughout the year may discover halfway through that the rules have changed, that the goalposts have moved, and they are receiving less.The actual means test will also be scrapped for these older students. It will be replaced by an income test involving gross, rather than taxable, income. This is a blunt instrument for judging a person's capacity to meet educational expenses. It is likely to result in some glaring anomalies. Fitting in with the requirements of the Social Security Act does not seem to me to be an adequate explanation for this change. There are some improvements that could be made irrespective of the argument concerning consistency. Perhaps it is an admission of failure by the government that it has been unable to competently design an actual means test.When one considers the overall impact of the government's common youth allowance, the extra burden it will place on the parents of young unemployed people, the impact on schools of an additional 27,000 16- and 17-year-old students moving back into education and the penalties it imposes on students who work or those whose partners work, one can see that the government is not serious about helping young Australians complete their education and move into paid employment. Its real agenda is a winding back of the role of government, an abandonment of its responsibilities, which can only damage Australia in the future.In the issues that I have raised about student income support there are some technicalities in this legislation which require the attention of the parliament and, one hopes, rectification by government ministers. Of the other issues that have been included in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Jagajaga there are some broader questions of policy which also need to be canvassed.There is no doubt that this government's changes to Austudy have been part of regressive changes to post-secondary education in Australia. It is bad enough to see 21,000 university places abolished. It is bad enough to see $240 million cuts to TAFE. It is bad enough to see the introduction of $100,000 up-front undergraduate fees. It is bad enough to have seen the changes in the HECS regime which are acting as a disincentive for a whole generation of young Australians going on to higher education. Those things are bad enough, but on top of those things the impact of a half billion dollar cut in Austudy, a half billion dollar cut in student income support, is absolutely appalling.This is a government that always regards education as a narrow cost off the budget, a cost which is more worthy of cutting than areas like defence which have been quarantined on the Commonwealth outlays envelope. This is a government that sees education as no more than a cost. The Labor Party has a very different approach. We want to see education as an investment, the very best investment we can make, in Australia's future. For that reason the Labor Party is interested in strengthening the student income support arrangements and we will be producing policies to that effect in the next election campaign.It is very important to make sure that government regards student income support as an investment rather than a cost. With adequate investments in young Australians, to see them through to the completion of their degrees and TAFE qualifications, we make a very good judgment about Australia's future. On the government budget, you actually save money if you get people through with adequate student income support, if you get them graduating, moving into good jobs and good careers.If we do that for an increased number of young Australians, they will have less reason and less cause to draw on public sector budgets in the years ahead. They will have less reason to draw on unemployment benefits; less cause to draw on the whole range of social security entitlements that they might need to access if they do not have educational qualifications. As I get around the country and talk to people about these issues of education and employment it is sometimes said, `Well, it's good to educate young people, but where are the jobs?' We need more jobs for young Australians, but I can give this guarantee to the House and to every single member that if a person has a poor education they are far less likely to get a job than someone with a good education. A country with a poorly educated population is less likely to succeed in the global economy than a country that is well educated.The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Mr Ruddock), who is at the table, nods. Why then would the minister be part of a government that made education and training the number one target for funding cuts, while at the same time it was quarantining defence spending? Why would the minister be part of a government—the only government in the Western world—that has introduced a higher ratio of military to education spending? Why would he be part of a government that does those things if he thinks that education is a good investment in Australia's future? These things are important to place on the parliamentary record, and I think the minister in his quieter moments might even concede that they are true. The important thing in this debate is to recognise the good argument for strengthening student income support, because if we do that, in the longer term we also make sounder financial management for the Commonwealth budget. It is also a very good argument to simplify these arrangements. I thought the Commonwealth ombudsperson, Philippa Smith, summed it up well when she said that you basically need a PhD these days to understand how the Austudy scheme works, it is so complicated. It has been so tightly targeted and overadministered.There comes a point in public administration and bureaucracy where you cannot cater for the sort of diversity that is now in our society—income support for students, the diversity of the relationship they have with part-time work, with their study, with their courses, with their location and with their parents' income level. It is a whole plethora of diversity among students around Australia.We have tried to devise a scheme over the years that caters for that diversity with extra categories of payments, extra targeting, and extra cut-in and cut-out points. It gets to the situation where it is an administrative nightmare. The government found that with the actual means test—one of the most horrific experiences that students had to go through when trying to access some basic income support.So you can overadminister these things, and you can overtarget. One of the goals of the Labor Party in policy development is to try to simplify these arrangements, because everyone knows that a public law which cannot be understood by the public is not a good law. That is the point we have got to with Austudy; it cannot be understood by the average student. Perhaps even the average parliamentarian cannot understand the complexity of the scheme. The member for Moore (Mr Filing) knows what I am talking about. It is a very, very complex scheme, and we need to do things to simplify the arrangements.The third plank in Labor Party ideas in this area is flexibility—to provide some sort of moulding capacity whereby students can take a bigger bundle of entitlements and use them according to their own circumstances. Instead of well-intentioned bureaucrats trying to cater for diversity with new categories, targeting, and cut-in and cut-out points, we would allow students to cater for their own diversity by moulding their entitlements according to circumstance, that is, bringing forward entitlements if that is where students need the income support to get through a hump in their study arrangements without doing so much part-time work, or deferring the arrangements if they want to place greater emphasis on full-time study towards the end of their undergraduate or TAFE studies.Flexibility is very important. I have always been attracted to the ideas the member for Sydney (Mr Peter Baldwin) was advancing in his time as Minister for Social Security, that we cannot rely now on a welfare system and income support system that is purely residual and narrowly focused with one-off payments for specific purpose. We need flexibility, the moulding capacity of allowing people, using some of this advanced information technology, to take greater control of how they use their entitlements from government. I am interested in these things. I even decided to write a book about some of them, and that has been mentioned in the parliament earlier. There is plenty in there about education. I do not know where old Count Yorga, Dr Kemp, gets this idea that there is nothing in my book about education; it is all about education. He will say or do anything to make his point. I think he has got the wrong book. I will have to send him around a copy so that he gets back on track. Poor old Yorga, he does not really know what he is talking about.The other point I make is that the Labor Party is interested and committed to progressively reducing the age of independence for Austudy arrangements. There was a debate about this recently in the Senate. I suppose it got caught up with all those political tactics they play in the other place, where the Democrats and Greens took the luxury—I suppose the Independents even try to do this from time to time—of promising the world, knowing that they will never have to deliver; promising the world but knowing they will never be in government to actually deliver. So they had all the ambit claims. The Labor Party moved its commonsense amendment, which is our policy, to progressively reduce the independ ence age, consistent with our very strong commitment to fiscal responsibility and surplus budgets in the first three years of a Labor government.The other point in this debate relates to schools policy. There is no doubt that the Howard government is running down the capacity of schools around Australia to cope with the impact of the common youth allowance. Last year, the government had a cabinet document which also came into the hands of the opposition. It showed that some $140 million was needed to cope with the impact of the 27,000 students who would be coming back into our schools because of the common youth allowance. The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) made a statement earlier this year. Belatedly, the government has provided $40 million, so schools are still being short-changed by $100 million. For every existing student working hard and studying hard in Australian schools that is bad news because they run the risk of their school not being able to cater for the needs of the new students.These are students often at risk of long-term unemployment, at risk of not valuing education—obviously students who would rather, by choice, not be at school. Those students have particular needs in the classroom that need to be catered for with specific government programs, which, from time to time, can be quite expensive. But, if we do not make that commitment and investment, we run the serious risk of the new students disrupting the studies of the existing students. Of course, that would be a tragedy for the school system.I could not think of anything worse than a young Australian now in the classroom wanting to study hard and get ahead, use education as a springboard, do a good job and get a good career, finding that the capacity of their school to deliver such a service has run down because the Howard government will not fund the impact of the common youth allowance. So I would urge the government to make up for the shortfall of $100 million, even at this late stage with the bill and its impact kicking in on 1 July. Let us fund up our schools so they cater for every single student, whether coming back into the system or currently studying in our schools.The Labor Party recognises that there are few, if any, jobs in the new economy for 16- and 17-year-olds without skills. There is no work available in some parts of Australia for unskilled teenagers. That is the truth of the new economy, the impact of the changing nature of work and the labour market. Government needs to respond by creating opportunity. We have no objection to the abolition of unemployment benefits for 16- and 17-year-olds, but government should never abolish benefits without at the same time creating opportunity in another area. Government should never use the language of reciprocal obligation simply to abolish benefits without also creating opportunity.Our policy on this is to support the realities of the new labour market, support the fact that we want 16- and 17-year-olds to get a good education under their belt, but that can be done only if government is willing to fund up the needs of schools, TAFE and other training programs. The $100 million gap really is a black mark against the record of this government, a black mark that is so much a part of its approach to education funding—to look at it as a cost, to slash it more than other parts of the Commonwealth budget and, in the end, run down the opportunities available for young Australians.I have tried to outline the concerns the Labor Party has about some of the technical aspects of this legislation and also give some outline to the principles we would adopt in the reform of student income support arrangements—strengthening the scheme, simplifying the scheme, providing greater flexibility as well as progressively reducing the independence age. On top of that, it is the responsibility of this government to act on its departmental advice, to drag out the old cabinet minute and concede that $140 million, not just $40 million, is needed to allow our schools to cope with the impact of the common youth allowance. I am pleased to support the amendment that has been moved by the honourable member for Jagajaga.17:11:001989Filing, Paul, MPMr FILINGQT4MooreIND00—It was interesting to hear the person who obviously is now being seen by the Treasurer (Mr Costello) as a leading commentator on economic and social policy.K26LATHAMMr Latham—He is a bad judge. That worries me.QT4Filing, Paul, MPMr FILING—He probably would have cause to regret that in years to come, having endorsed your work so thoroughly. I will make an observation about another book about social policy and social trends by Hugh Mackay, Generations: Baby Boomers, their Parents and their Children . He makes a number of observations which impact on or go to filling out the circumstances that give rise to these policy changes. One of them he makes mention of is the general desire for happiness in our community. He states:If you want to know whether we are happy, it all comes back to how we feel about our families, how our children have turned out. That is how we judge ourselves.That is a very important point. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998 completes the legislation package commenced with the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance) Bill 1997 , which gave legislative effect to the new social security payment, the youth allowance. The youth allowance is described as an integrated income support payment that will be available to young people regardless of whether a person is in education, in training, unemployed or sick.The primary purpose of this new bill is to provide the consequential amendments for the youth allowance. It also incorporates related measures which, we are told, largely comprise the transfer of program elements for older students from the employment, education, training and youth affairs portfolio to the social security portfolio. Austudy payments will replace the Austudy living allowance, and the same income test will be applied to youth allowance beneficiaries as is applied to social security beneficiaries.The government's approach, lauded by its own members, is in two main areas. Firstly, it removes what some people saw as a disincentive for young people to find a source of employment as an alternative to living off the dole. As is the case in my own electorate and in the electorates of many of the members here, this is a perennial source of discontent to many parents who are furious that their student offspring who are desperately trying to improve their education find themselves in an inferior position than if they had sought to live on the dole.Secondly, it simplifies the system of allowances applicable to young people to an easily understood, consistent and manageable package, according to the government's own commentators. Obviously, these are admirable ambitions from the government, and I would like to commend them for their intentions. This provides a simplification of a situation that existed before this new legislation. It applies an activity test, which ensures that people qualify for an allowance. This, in itself, is a good requirement and, I am sure, is consistent with community expectations. I believe that this legislation will result in a reduction of cases where disparity exists between people studying and people opting to go onto welfare.Now for the bad points. Unfortunately, there are a number of serious problems. As I mentioned in an earlier speech in relation to another matter, it is not good enough to just govern this nation with good intentions. I have spoken before on what I consider to be some other defects in the approach of the coalition government to implementing legislation. I am sure the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) would agree that any reform process requires an excellent marketing approach to ensure that the community understands not only how and why the reform process is necessary but also exactly how it is going to make the situation better.This government's approaches to aged care, health care, child care, pharmaceutical benefits and, for that matter, the dental scheme have all come into disrepute due to the government's inability at times to translate policy into working programs. The most classic example in recent times has been the changes to child-care arrangements, which, in themselves, were brought in with the best of intentions. Unfortunately, they were running ahead of the technological ability to deliver the processes which would allow the reforms to take effect. One of the most notorious, unfortunate failures in the reform program was the Austudy reforms introduced by the then minister, Minister Vanstone. Income and means testing for this youth allowance was based on the discredited actual means test at the heart of those Austudy reforms, and that is of concern to me. I am concerned because I believe that, as was the case with the actual means test with the Austudy reforms, they will draw many families into them—families who otherwise were, in a sense, unfortunately drawn into a process (the process of applying and qualifying under the actual means test) which made them at times appear as though they were being less than honest in making declarations of their income and expenses. I drew to the attention of the minister a number of examples in my own electorate. People who were thoroughly honest and acting with the best of intentions in total good faith were treated as though they were dishonest by officials who were trying desperately to apply this actual means test in the spirit which they believed it had been introduced; they had a peg that did not fit the hole. Unfortunately, it led to people being caught in the pincers of the actual means test and, as a consequence, they were treated as though they were being dishonest in making those declarations and many of them could not understand why. I predict that the Australian community will find it difficult to accept the implementation of the government's agenda for the youth allowance any more readily than they accepted the government's format of aged care or child care reform. I mention this in the context of Hugh Mackay's work. One of the underlying theses of Hugh Mackay's book is that there is a growing sense of insecurity in our community that is gnawing away at what was considered to be the happiness and wellbeing in our community. There are a variety of reasons for this. One of those is the complexity and the changing nature of government legislation and regulation. As the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) indicated—although I must say, given the performance of the previous Labor administration over 13 years, this is difficult to understand—that complexity and difficulty in understanding government changes and legislative change gives rise to a growing sense of insecurity. I mentioned the key points of insecurity in a family's experience of child care, particularly in the nurturing of very young children. It is also the case with aged care when a family finds itself in a predicament where one of its members requires aged care and aged care accommodation. In this instance, we are dealing with families who are faced with one of the great and most serious underlying problems in our community today—youth unemployment. Because of the changes that have been wrought on the community by technological and workplace changes and the economic policy over the last 13 to 15 years, the young in our community have had to put up with unemployment rates which are at a disproportionate level to other sectors of the community. That is an unfair burden on young people and is a matter that was commented upon by Sir William Deane, not a person I quote often. In this instance, at the opening of the 1997 national convention of the APEX clubs of Australia, he said:Youth unemployment in contemporary Australia should not be seen as merely an economic problem to be evaluated, as a factor in some economic hypothesis and addressed only within the limits allowed by preconceptions of business efficiency. To the contrary, youth unemployment must be seen and addressed as an overwhelming social problem which is already having permanent destructive consequences with respect to the self-confidence, self-respect and self-esteem of a significant proportion of a whole generation of young Australians. It's a problem that should be in the forefront of the minds of all caring Australians all the time until it is resolved. In that regard, it is of great importance that our young people who are unable to obtain employment are not seen by others or by themselves as having somehow failed. The plain fact is that it is our society which has failed them.One of the traps, which the member for Werriwa mentioned, is a one size fits all approach. Families and family circumstances are not identical. That is true. This should not be a government exercise in social engineering. Sometimes by oversimplifying the approach with the good intention of trying to make it understandable, governments adopt a real world approach that may be unlikely to satisfy the needs of any but a few families in Australia today. This breathtaking approach will certainly come home to roost if it is not applied in a fair way given time. The most crucial and damaging element of the reform is a failure in this legislation, as a consequential effect of the original bill, to deal with the shortfall in funding. The states and territories will be required to cope with the movement of more than 27,000 young people into education and training. These 27,000 additional students have largely been identified as being at high risk of dropping out of education and it has been recognised that specific programs and efforts are required. These programs are all expensive, yet it is not clear how the federal government has chosen to make the funds available to the states and territories to allow them to cope with the direct and primary purpose of the youth allowance program—to get young people off unemployment and back into education. Even if these specialised programs are not to be delivered, what of finding new schools or vacancies in tertiary institutions for 27,000 people? Obviously, this is going to be at some cost. If you are talking about the Commonwealth that is so, but it is not so for the states and territories.My state of Western Australia already suffers from a range of difficulties in relation to obtaining its fair share of Commonwealth-state funding. A small population in a vast state is responsible for generating an enormous share of the Commonwealth's financial prosperity. Despite the enormous wealth generation possible from Western Australia, grants are being more and more based on size of population rather than taking adequate account of the costs of infrastructure required to generate wealth.This is a self-defeating policy for the Commonwealth, which is involved in an exercise where it is estimated around $778 million in states grants have been forgone by Western Australia over the last five years. Already people in my electorate are seeing the direct result of the loss of Commonwealth funds to pay for infrastructure to cater for what are considered to be core community services provided by government.It is ironic in the sense of finding oneself in the position of making complaints in relation to these services to the state governments to be told by them that this is as a result of the shortfall of funding from the Commonwealth government and then when coming here to ask the Prime Minister what we should do about that being told, `There is no problem. What are you talking about.' It makes it difficult then to accept the argument which is raised by people in the federal parliamentary party that these issues are not Commonwealth issues to be raised at election time when quite clearly their state counterparts are saying, `Yes, this is a matter requiring adjustment of Commonwealth-state fiscal relations. What are they going to do about it? It is not our fault. We are trying our very best.'My constituents can see the direct results of this, particularly as I have an outer metropolitan seat where there are large areas of new housing development where services and facilities are not readily available. People are required to wait for them. In order to provide these types of infrastructure resources to the community there is a necessity for them to receive their fair share of funding from the Commonwealth. After all, in the final analysis, vertical fiscal imbalance between the Commonwealth and the states, which sounds all very grandiose, in reality means that where the Commonwealth is increasing its revenue from the taxpayers by virtue of economic growth it is not returning a fair proportion of that revenue back to the states where the revenue is derived.With this piece of legislation we are going to find an exacerbation of the effects of vertical fiscal imbalance—created by legislation that, in the first instance, was introduced with the best of intentions. I think some of these may have been not quite as unforeseen as they may appear now, given the comments of the member for Werriwa. Nonetheless, they are consequences that impact on the lives of many thousands of Australians raising children.I am sure the minister would acknowledge, given his experience in opposition, that one of the great criticisms of previous Labor administrations made by oppositions, including me in opposition, was that their policies impacted adversely on the ability of families raising children of teenage years in particular to make ends meet, to provide children with the care and the opportunities that parents, as Hugh Mackay quite rightly points out in his work, so desperately want to do in order to feel that they giving them the best possible start in life.By forcing thousands of young people back into the education and training sector without any apparent financial compensation to the level of government which has the responsibility to deliver those services, this government appears to be failing in its duty of care to its citizens and in particular to Western Australians. As the states have limited means to generate the $140 million which has been identified by the Commonwealth as needed to adequately address the expected increase in demand, the main effect of the federal government refusing to fund the effects of its legislation will be to force states and territories to bleed funds out of other programs of service delivery in the community or raise their own taxes. Of course we know what that means. In the end it is increasing gambling revenue and all the other less difficult revenue raising measures which may well be less difficult in the first instance but which have serious social consequences over the long term.What will the reaction of constituents be who are already seeing a reduction in services? Will the states and territories be forced to channel money out of health care, aged care, disability services or reduce wealth generating infrastructure expenditure or perhaps welfare service infrastructure or perhaps just revise their education expenditure? It is quite clear now that the government, as it is poised to launch on to the community its taxation reforms, needs desperately to address this very serious disparity between the Commonwealth and the states in their financial relations. In my view there is a desperate need for greater devolution in revenue raising by the Commonwealth and states in order to allow the states to do what they are supposed to do—to provide the services that the community needs, the core services that in many instances the Commonwealth government should not be involved in at all.How will parents feel now that their children at school will have fewer resources for education? That is a question that needs answering. How will they judge a rationale that sends children who do not want to be at school into educational programs as a means of income? Those of us who have spoken to local high schools which have a higher attendance rate, particularly amongst those in years 11 and 12, because of the lack of jobs available for people of that age, would know only too well that in many instances those who do not want to be at school make life difficult for others. Sometimes they are disruptive or they may see—in some instances, their parents may see—this as an activity that keeps them occupied during the day rather than have them hang around at home. As I have said, the lack of Commonwealth funding to schools and training will reinforce the destructive effects of vertical fiscal imbalance. Unfortunately, this piece of legislation will contribute to that particular problem.Finally, I just want to touch briefly on the question of the age of independence. It is a matter I dealt with the first time when the changes for Austudy were being mooted. We know now from debates in this place that the age of independence was plucked out of the air principally because the Labor Party had in previous years and therefore I presume the coalition considered this to be more acceptable.One of the problems incorporated in introducing a higher age threshold for independence is that, in many instances, other government departments, particularly those of the Commonwealth, do not support parents in their endeavours to support their offspring who are placed in these situations. I could go on and talk about a number of instances I have described in the past.I could cite one particular instance where the Department of Social Security made payments to a woman who was housing two runaway teenage girls who had been reported missing by their parents. These parents were asked by the department to repay family allowance payments made to them because they were not looking after the girls. These are the sorts of situations which parents find utterly bewildering and, as I mentioned earlier, add to the insecurity felt by many families in today's society—insecurity that is fed by changes which are not well promoted or understood by the community. (Time expired)17:31:001993Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—I will not speak at the length in relation to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Allowance Consequential and Related Measures) Bill 1998. This is essentially a technical bill. The legislation was essentially passed yesterday after some amendments were returned from the Senate and adopted in this place.We have been debating a ploy—one I have used before and one which the honourable member for Moore (Mr Filing) would be familiar with—whereby you move an amendment to enable you to engage in what amounts to essentially tedious repetition. What we have seen is members regaling the arguments that they offered some weeks ago. The legislation already being in place, they wanted to address those matters again. I could go over the same ground that I went over yesterday, but I do not intend to.QT4FILINGMr Filing—Well, some of us wanted to speak yesterday.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—There were opportunities if you were present yesterday. I did not see you in the chamber at the time.I will make a number of short points in relation to the only relevant issue that has arisen out of this bill—that is, the point made by the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Latham). He raised questions as to why rent assistance is not available to Austudy payment recipients. The answer is very simple. In relation to the comparative arrangements which we are translating into this bill, rent assistance had previously not been made available. It would involve additional funds over and above which the government had intended to appropriate to implement this legislation. So the intention was to implement the existing arrangements which were perfectly satisfactory to the Labor Party when they were in office. That is a very simple point and one that can be well understood.The only other points that have been made relate to the suggestion that this government is in no way committed to getting young unemployed back into education. Certainly, this government has been. There were suggestions by the member for Jagajaga (Ms Macklin) and the member for Werriwa that this government does not have a commitment to funding secondary schools and that funding had been cut. Funding for schools in 1998 will be $179 million higher than it was in Labor's last year in office. For every child who returns to school as a result of the youth allowance, the school will get an extra $559 in funding.On top of this we have announced an additional $42.6 million in funding to ease the transition to the youth allowance, $22.6 million for the student at risk program, $13.5 million for the jobs pathway program and $6.2 million for the new apprenticeships access program. I would suggest that honourable members who are suggesting a lack of commitment on our part have a look at what has been done and they would not be trying to mount those sorts of arguments, which have little validity.I do not intend to take any further time of the House. I would rather have the bill. It is a technical bill. It is one that ought to be supported to enable the effective implementation of the legislation that has already been enacted. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Ms Macklin's amendment) stand part of the question.17:39:00The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker—Mrs D.M. Kelly)82Abbott, A. J. Andrew, J. N.Andrews, K. J. Anthony, L. J.Bailey, F. E. Baldwin, R. C.Barresi, P. A. Bartlett, K. J.Billson, B. F. Bishop, B. K.Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E.Cadman, A. G. Cameron, E. H.Cameron, R. A. Causley, I. R.Charles, R. E. Cobb, M. R.Costello, P. H. Dondas, N. M.Draper, P. Elson, K. S.Entsch, W. G. Evans, R. D. C.Fahey, J. J. Fischer, T. A.Forrest, J. A. Gallus, C. A.Gambaro, T. Gash, J.Georgiou, P. Grace, E. J.Halverson, R. G. Hardgrave, G. D.Hawker, D. P. M. Hicks, N. J.*Johnston, R. Jull, D. F.Katter, R. C. 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. Ronaldson, M. J. C.Ruddock, P. M. Scott, B. C.Sharp, J. R. Slipper, P. N.*Smith, A. C. Smith, W. L.Somlyay, A. M. Southcott, A. J.Stone, S. N. Sullivan, K. J.Taylor, W. L. Thomson, A. P.Truss, W. E. Tuckey, C. W.Vaile, M. A. J. Vale, D. S.West, A. G. Wooldridge, M. R. L.Worth, P. M. Zammit, P. J.39Adams, D. G. H. Albanese, A.Andren, P. J. Baldwin, P. J.Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.Brown, R. J. Crean, S. F.Crosio, J. A. Dargavel, S. J.Ellis, A. L. Evans, G. J.Evans, M. J. Ferguson, L. D. T.Ferguson, M. J. Fitzgibbon, J. A.Grace, E. L.* Griffin, A. P.*Hatton, M. Hollis, C.Jenkins, H. A. Kerr, D. J. C.Latham, M. W. Lawrence, C. M.Lee, M. J.Macklin, J. L.McClelland, R. B. McLeay, L. B.McMullan, R. F. Melham, D.Morris, A. A. Morris, P. F.Mossfield, F. W. O'Keefe, N. P.Quick, H. V. Sawford, R. W.*Sercombe, R. C. G. Theophanous, A. C.Willis, R.Anderson, J. D. Brereton, L. J.Howard, J. W. Beazley, K. C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.1995Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock) read a third time.Bills1995r4821995Debate resumed from 30 March, on motion by Mr Fahey:That the bill be now read a second time.17:45:001995Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—We are debating the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 at this time because a weak Prime Minister (Mr Howard) has decided that he needs to grab Australia's premier business, Australia's most significant public asset, and dispense with it for tawdry electoral purposes. He has performed this act without consultation with his coalition partners. He has performed it in order to attempt to change an agenda which has decisively shifted against him because he is unable to maintain normal ministerial standards in this place.Without consultation he thought that the Australian public would stand idly by, that the opposition would stand idly by, and witness the privatisation of a public asset which has been built up over years—an asset that does not require a subsidy from the taxpayers; an asset which, in many aspects of the market, is substantially in a monopoly position; an asset upon which Australian electronics industries rely; an asset upon which our bush substantially relies for decent services; and an asset upon which small business relies not to be exploited on a monopoly basis. Having arrived at the conclusion that all these interests and views could be jettisoned for his one ambition, he now presents to us in this place a bill.I have this to say about the Prime Minister: anybody who thinks that he is able to deliver on the community service obligations that he talks about; anybody who thinks that he is able to ensure, on the basis of his undertakings, a company that works in the interests of Australia and Australians as a whole; anyone who thinks that we will continue to have what we have enjoyed for the last decade and a half—a vibrant Australian electronics industry which has taken its export performance from $50 million a year to $1 billion a year, largely off the back of Telstra purchases—anybody who thinks that the Prime Minister can guarantee all those things will be, if the government gets its way, a sadly disillusioned person. This Prime Minister cannot effectively operate the Australian health system. How will he be able to deliver five years or 10 years from now any of the undertakings that he has given in regard to the operations of Telstra?This bill symbolises another thing that Australians are coming to know about the Prime Minister and it is why they are so disappointed in him. They came to vote for him at the last election with a view that he was a man of substantial integrity and foresight and that he was a person who could make them feel relaxed and comfortable. It was a reputation which he was proud of. It was a reputation which he sought to exploit. It was a political bank of capital which he has spent royally since he has been in office.The Australian people have come to know a different Prime Minister: a Prime Minister who disappoints them; a Prime Minister not capable of providing for his undertakings; and a Prime Minister who uses weasel words to weasel out of one commitment after another to the Australian people, be it to the Australian elderly in respect of their dental care and access to nursing homes; be it to Australian women in respect of their access to the work force on a basis that sees their children properly cared for; or be it to Australian students in respect of the undertakings that this government made to university students, students in technical and further education and students in public schools. One after another Australians are disappointed—disappointed with the Prime Minister's undertakings.We see symbolised in this act the sort of weaselly interpretation and reinterpretation that we have come to be so familiar with in debates over the last fortnight on the code of conduct—an action that is equivalent to this action. Remember the code of conduct debate that we have had in this place? We will have it again here, I predict, before Easter is upon us. Remember the Prime Minister's words about how he would bring better standards to this country, about how his standards for ministers were new, about how his standards for ministers were unique to himself, about how his standards for ministers would be observed to the letter? Remember all that? What do we see now? He is saying, `Well, they weren't really my standards, they were the standards of the previous government,' and, `Really, they are guidelines, it is not a standard. They are guidelines.'Think of the guidelines there and the guidelines here: the guidelines that will govern the government's attitude towards Telstra as far as the bush is concerned, as far as Australian industry is concerned. They will be precisely the sorts of guidelines that the Prime Minister now applies to his ministers. The Prime Minister has no standards on that front and he will have no standards on this. It is not that he says, `I find these things impossible and I walk away from them.' He has a weaselly interpretation. For example, instead of saying we are not permitted to divest to our kids, he says, `Well, I only meant dependent kids.'We have it again with this bill. What did the Prime Minister say about Telstra at the last election? He said, `We will sell one-third; we'll sell no more. We will have a consultation with the Australian people before we sell any more.' This is how the Prime Minister observes it. It is true that, if this bill passes parliament and is dealt with on the basis that the Prime Minister says it will be dealt with, technically speaking we could say that the promise was fulfilled. But we could only say `technically speaking'.The Prime Minister is putting in place a full-blown legislative regime which the Australian electorate has not had an opportunity to examine in detail or influence through the normal course of an election campaign. It is there on a `take it or leave it basis' for the Australian people as they go into the next election. It may even be utilised—it is not altogether beyond the bounds of possibility—by the Prime Minister as a double dissolution issue. The Prime Minister goes down the road of saying, `I would not do another thing without consulting the Australian people, but I'll stack a double dissolution on you with this particular piece of legislation, which you were entitled to expect—given the undertakings I made—would not be coming forward in the life of this parliament.' This legislation is conceived in weakness, it is conceived in the tendency that this Prime Minister has developed to weasel out of his undertakings and it is conceived against Australia's national interests.I say this at the outset of this debate. As far as the opposition is concerned, we understand thoroughly that the Prime Minister cannot deliver on what anybody in regional Australia would regard in contemporary terms as a community service obligation. The Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) made great play yesterday of $10 million dollar penalties—no benchmarking of that, I might say, and no process attached to it—that would apply to people who did not uphold community service obligations. Well, big deal. What are those community service obligations to? They are to a telephone and a copper wire to regional Australia. You will get fined $10 million if those telephones do not keep working. Well, bully for him, bully for the government.Everybody in this country understands—and the bush understands in particular—that the communications system of this nation is deeply embedded in the next generation of Australian industrial development in information technology. Everybody in the bush and everybody elsewhere understands that Telstra is critical not just to phone calls between families; Telstra is critical to the next generation of industrial development in this country. Everybody in the bush comprehends that if the service they obtain does not permit them to use the sorts of on-line services that people can use in the metropolitan area they are competitively at a massive disadvantage. If they were not convinced of that before today, seeing the peregrinations of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) over the weekend in that otherwise completely incomprehensible interview that he did with Laurie Oakes would mean that they would comprehend this: that ISDN does not reach the farms. No matter what the Prime Minister might have indicated during the last election campaign, ISDN stops seven kilometres from every telephone exchange. That is where it stops. The farmers do not get it.Read that experience dramatically for what is going to occur over the next five to 10 years. In one sense, the Prime Minister faces an impossible task. It actually is impossible to legislate for community service obligations in this area in any meaningful way and to expect that legislation to have any meaning five or 10 years down the line, because we all comprehend that the services—both in terms of what is capable of being provided down the line and the technical equipment that goes to it—that will dominate the industry a decade from now have probably not yet been invented or, if they have, they sit in the R&D labs of AT&T, the Bell operating companies, Siemens and all the other suppliers—they probably sit in Bill Gates's head. That is where the next generation of service lies. The notion that you could legislate for it now is, of course, a complete nonsense. So the Prime Minister, while trying to give assurances that he is capable of doing that with his community service obligations, knows full well that no Prime Minister could give—in fact, that no opposition leader could give; nobody in Australian politics could give—the assurance that he is seeking to give in any meaningful way.What you can say, however, is this. If the government owns the system, if the people own the system through the government, when those developments come on stream, when they occur and there is an issue in relation to whether or not they are capable of being provided to regional Australia or affordably to people in the metropolitan area—they are included in all of this because it is not just a debate about regional Australia—and there is a feeling that a section of the community is being hard done by, it is possible for a government to direct, provided the government controls.This legislation does not only eliminate the people's shareholding in Telstra; it also eliminates the minister's power to direct Telstra. That was all that lay in the contemporary legislation—and cleared off, I might say, in the prospectus for the one-third sale of Telstra—that actually had the potential at least to deliver a fair outcome in relation to the provision of those communications services down the line. And that has gone.Why has it gone? The government want a $40 billion poultice for election purposes. The government believe and have said that they will get from that, firstly, savings in public debt interest—they say it is about $4 billion. On top of that, they say they are going to get, as a result of this exercise, a certain amount that they can slap around the districts, as they have managed to do in that blatantly political exercise, the Natural Heritage Trust.But there are one or two things that I think ought to cause people a bit of pause for thought as far as that is concerned. I note a cautionary piece of correspondence from one James Riley, who has written an article headed `Premature Telstra sale will damage the industry'. He is looking at it from the point of view of the relationship between telecommunications and the information technology industry. He says this about the government's view of how useful it is to dispense with Telstra:If you were Bill Gates, for example, and you owned, without significant debt, a two-thirds majority in one of the world's largest companies in the world's fastest growing sector, would you sell it? (Prime Ministers and Liberal Party leaders are excused from answering the question.)It is a nonsense policy which will become an obstacle to the growth of competition in telecommunications—the backbone in large part of our economic growth—long after John Howard has retired, and flight paths are restored over his Bennelong electorate.That is a pertinent point, I might say, on a number of fronts. But will the Prime Minister get that $4 billion saving? Here is something that ought to be contemplated in this debate. By the year 2000, independent estimates project the government's two-thirds share of Telstra's earnings to reach $2.3 billion per annum. This is $2.3 billion for the benefit of all Australians in dividends to the government or in better telephone services. If John Howard's scheme succeeds, that $2.3 billion will be there every year not for all Australians but for fewer Australians, some big companies and foreign interests.Forget promises about $4 billion in annual savings in interest repayments. For a start, the current 10-year government bond rate of 5.7 per cent retiring $40 billion of Commonwealth debt reduces PDI payments by $2.3 billion annually, not $4 billion. If John Howard then shaves $5 billion off that $40 billion for his so-called social bonus, retiring $35 billion of Commonwealth debt will have reduced PDI by only $2 billion a year. What investor would give up $2.3 billion a year to get only $2 billion back? That is precisely what they are doing with this tawdry manoeuvre. Whether it occurs in the year 2000 or five or six years after that, there will be a crossover point between the PDI that you no longer owe and what you would have gained in dividends. There is no question about that. There is no question that this will be to the detriment of the budget.What John Howard has managed to do with this ill-considered overreaction to his difficult political circumstances—on which he has not consulted his National Party colleagues—is in fact to place a question mark over his whole tax package. The government has made no secret of the fact that this interest reduction is supposed to go to paying for a substantial part of that tax package. Yet what every Australian will know at some point in time in the not too distant future is that it will have had a detrimental effect on the budget by getting rid of that dividend. The result of that will be, essentially, bad for the budget and it will call into question whether or not those tax cuts can in fact be sustained.I will go back to James Riley's article again because it is a wonderful corrective to some of the nonsense that has been around. He says:Although our society has changed dramatically in the past 20 years, taxi drivers are still as much a barometer of our country's battler-majority as they have ever been.I have yet to meet a single cabbie who has not called the privatisation and its associated short-term "social bonus" stupidity. (And these are city taxis. Lord knows what a driver from the country might say.)What we have had delivered by this government is the annihilation of a great Australian company, 100 per cent in Australian hands. They are going to sell it to some Australians and some foreigners. But the Prime Minister said, `Only 35 per cent to foreigners.'The Prime Minister has never been a communications minister. If the Prime Minister had been a communications minister, he would comprehend this: if two or three American regional Bell operating companies or RBOCs got together and decided to acquire five per cent each and subsequently sat down with the institutions that are the dominant shareholders—or will be the dominant shareholders very rapidly as far as Australia is concerned—and said, `Look, these are our priorities; they will enhance your bottom line and your profit if you follow this guidance,' will the board do anything other than what those shareholders indicate they should do? Of course they will not.What will they say? They will say things like this: `If you come for the purchase of your fibre cable, your multiplexes, your switches; if you come, off the end'—and therefore marginally priced—`of our order in the United States system, you will be able to acquire them for a half or a third of the price that you can acquire them for from Siemens Australia or Alcatel Australia,'—or any of the other domestically based Australian industries which have grown up to supply that market. Will a board of directors, with all the duties that are imposed on them under company law, do anything other than accept that advice? Of course they will not. They will do nothing other than accept that advice.A massive part of a great Australian success story has been the performance of our service and manufacturing industries over the last decade when—at least when we were in office—they experienced 12 per cent increases per annum; and, at the very heart of that export performance, has been the Australian electronics industry. Fifty million was exported when we came into office in 1983. That amount is now over a billion and headed for $1.5 billion by the end of this century. It is headed down the drain if this particular bill manages to pass the parliament and the scrutiny of the Australian people.Where is the real attitude when it comes to raising these sorts of issues? Where is the real attitude of this government? Where does it lie? We had Senator Harradine test that the other day. He tested the idea that you might actually expand a city based service out into areas of interest to him. Senator Harradine asked Senator Alston:If the facility is available free of charge—this is a particular service he is talking about—to those users in the other capital cities, why is it not available to users in Hobart? Why is it not available free of charge right throughout Australia?Senator Alston replied:I see, so everything that Telstra does should be made available to everyone? Is that what you are arguing? This is the ultimate in socialisation, isn't it?I would have thought that it was just about the ultimate in commonsense, and the ultimate in a bit of fairness around Australia. I do not think it is necessarily the ultimate in socialisation. If Senator Alston wants to characterise it that way, so be it. But go out there and tell it to the bush. Go out there and tell it to people in Tasmania. Have decency and honesty about you so that you are prepared to indicate to them what is actually coming down the line after them. They know, they know absolutely the truth of it, but they would like to hear it from your own mouths.If you think, too, that you are going to be able to ensure what is actually delivered—that is, better prices to Australians over the last seven or eight years or so, which has, in fact, been competition—then have a thought to what was said by ATUG, an organisation which was the bane of my life, I must say, when I was communications minister; it is not an organisation opposed to privatisation but an organisation much devoted to the consumer interest. What do they say about it? This is what ATUG had to say:Recent worrying examples of users' interests being ignored include comments by Telstra's regulatory affairs chief, Graeme Ward, warning that industry intervention by the government watchdog, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), could have a "potentially chilling effect on investment" in Telstra.It just happens to be the case that we have had some experience in these matters in relation to the communications industry and competition. There is no question at all that right throughout those who are telecommunications consumers in this country—including those who passionately believe that at some point of time Telstra ought to be privatised, among whom I do not count my self—most of those are of that view that at some point of time Telstra should be privatised, but they take this point and they take it absolutely. With competition so shaky, based on such an unsound footing as it is now in Australia, with that competition—which we were very proud to put into place but we knew would take decades to cement itself—as shakily based as it is now, the very last thing that is needed in this system is for the privatisation of Telstra to occur. It will only occur at the expense of competition.The leadership of the organisation understand full well that they can put to a government concerned about a bottom line in relation to a shareholders' benefit, that they can put to a government concerned about getting a successful sale off, that the optimisation of Telstra's market dominance will be precisely the sort of thing they need for that $40 billion which the Prime Minister needs for his war chest. That will be absolutely what they need.The thing that will be jettisoned most rapidly to achieve that will be the competitive climate. It is not just simply a matter of what the ACCC understands as the competitive climate. The truth of the matter is that Telstra understands far more what that competitive climate entails, far more than anybody else in the system, including the ACCC. They know precisely what to exploit and they will exploit it. They will exploit it as a monopoly.We saw it again from the Prime Minister today. Having given, in the last election campaign, an absolute commitment to small business that they would get untimed calls at the local level on voice and data, he comes back on voice. Why does he come back on voice? He comes back on voice, of course, because that is the least expensive. You come back on data and that is precisely where a private monopoly in Telstra can get its hands on value-added in the small business community and rip it out for its purposes. That is precisely what it can do and they have to be protected from it. And the last piece of protection, the ministerial direction, this government rips away, absolutely rips away.There is one other argument they make and this is the most spurious argument of all; that is, the argument related to the retirement of public debt. They say they have a situation that is extraordinarily difficult for them to handle in relation to public debt. What rubbish! This is a piece of deception on the Australian people that suits the interests of the government, no doubt, but it is a massive piece of deception nevertheless.Before this government came into office, what was the Commonwealth's proportion of public debt to GDP in ratio terms? About 20. It is true, if this goes through and they spend it all on retirement of debt, that goes down to five or six. But was the 20 a problem? Is the 30 a problem when you add in state debt as well? Of course it is not. If we actually wanted to sign up, for example, to the Euro pean common currency under the Maastricht rules, we would be entitled to do so with 60 per cent as the ratio of public debt to GDP. Let us take a look at other countries, none of which we would necessarily describe as being in a situation of crisis as far as their fiscal management is concerned, and look at their percentages.Australia is actually 28—I said 30. Germany—not exactly an economic pygmy, not exactly a cot case—is 48. The United States—that nation which is the giant engine of the world economy and an enormously successful economy—what is the US's public debt to GDP ratio? Remember, Australia is 28. The US is 48. Belgium has been one of those countries which have been regarded as an economic success. What is its public debt to GDP ratio? It is 124 per cent.When you start to take a look at those sorts of figures, you know how bogus is the performance of the Treasurer (Mr Costello) here day after day when he boasts reduction in public debt. It exposes, however, the real motivation behind it. To argue on the basis of such untruth, to argue on the basis of such deception is merely the sort of cloud of misconceptions, lies and deception that you have to put around a policy which, at its heart, is damaging to the Australian national interest. It is no wonder that the country instinctively feels that.The extent of the desperation of the government is that they clearly went ahead with this promise without properly testing it. This is a government which has stayed as close to the polls as it possibly can. On this occasion it forgot to and to its horror, after the enormous fanfare that it announced, it discovered by a two to one majority that the Australian people understood their interests. The Australian people thoroughly comprehend that they own Telstra. They thoroughly comprehend that they can place pressure on Telstra management through their elected representatives. Small business thoroughly understands that a monopoly provider of an essential service is not going to act in their interests.What has the Prime Minister been trying to do ever since? He has been running around the place saying, `Whether or not you like what we are doing, if the opposition got into power, then they would do it themselves.' That is his defence: they would do it anyway.Let me now give this rolled gold guarantee to the Australian people. We will not privatise the other two-thirds of Telstra. We understand that the Australian people value this company. We understand that it is no burden on them economically. We understand that their dividends will pay for very substantial benefits for the Australian people over time. We have done our sums on this and we have them right. In getting them right we are going to ensure that the Australian people do not put themselves in a situation where they make themselves hostage to a very substantial slab of foreign ownership and hostage to a set of private owners not interested in competition but interested in getting the most out of them.18:15:002001Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—I have been listening with interest to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) and I wrote down the valuable points he made during his speech. He said that the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 cannot deliver in the bush, will not cover losses, that the dividend is bad for the budget and that it means the annihilation of a great Australian company. He then proposed and floated the conspiracy theory of foreign interests. He then said that it would be exploited as a monopoly. He asked, `Is debt a problem?' and, as a failed finance minister, he said, `Of course it isn't.' Then he gave the rolled gold guarantee that in government the Labor Party would repeal this legislation.Mr Deputy Speaker, you cannot believe anything the Labor Party says about any issue. We have heard its false promises in election after election in recent years. It brings these promises out and then repeals them soon after. For instance, the Leader of the Opposition has just said that he would never contemplate selling Telstra, but on Meet the Press in 1994 he said:Privatisation in the limited sense would work. I mean, you could privatise Telecom if you set your mind to it.Just two years later, he said:I have already indicated that I have never advocated the sale of Telstra, publicly or privately, and nor have I speculated that the Labor Party would do so.Yet two years earlier he had said something different. He also did not mention in his speech some of the broad objectives that he and his party have towards privatisation. In 1994, the Leader of the Opposition said:The broad micro-economic reform objectives pursued by the government through asset sales include improved accountability and efficiency, increased competition through the reform of market structures, and reduced government involvement in sectors where it is no longer justified.These are very good comments coming from the Leader of the Opposition. He went on to say:And despite some critics suggesting asset sales amount to selling off the family jewels, they do not result in a loss of infrastructure but rather a transfer of ownership.He also said:Asset sales allow the government to maintain public services and benefits to the Australian people while maintaining the deficit reduction strategy without increased taxes.He said that in 1994, yet in 1998 he is saying the complete opposite. On 7 July 1994, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Kim Beazley, said:But there are broader benefits to be gained from moving the ownership of assets into the private sector, most notably in achieving greater efficiency, stronger performance and improved competitiveness in some of our key national enterprises.Surely, that is what this legislation is all about—improved efficiency and improved competitiveness. That is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was in government, and he now says in opposition something very different. The Leader of the Opposition also said in 1994:The real measure for whether privatisation should occur is whether there will be a net social and economic gain from moving a particular enterprise into private ownership.I think there is a lot of benefit in selling the rest of Telstra. I am sure that we will be outlining those points further on in this debate. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you recall the now opposition leader saying in a speech in 1994: The government has therefore been able to sell down to 51 per cent ownership of the Commonwealth Bank, however, it has also retained government control in recognition of the value the government places on having a voice in the industry and an opportunity to contribute to its stability.That is very similar to what he said in his speech today. He said, on behalf of the government at the time, that it would never sell the Commonwealth Bank. That is what he said on 7 July 1994. On 31 October 1993, Ralph Willis, the then Treasurer, in answer to a question from journalist Sarah Turner, who asked, `So unlike before, this time your commitment is iron clad?', said, `Absolutely, yes.' He said that they would never sell the Commonwealth Bank. What happened? They did.The Leader of the Opposition was communications minister for a short time—he failed as finance minister and so he was communications minister—and he talked about how the Labor Party made great strides in technology and communication. Yet back in 1983 when they first came in, he said that the Labor Party was the reason for these advances. I can recall personal computers being almost the size of a fridge in 1983. Of course there have been advances, but the Labor Party cannot claim credit for those advances. We are moving into the 21st century—the information age. We have to go with it, and that is why we need competition to provide these services.When the Leader of the Opposition was communications minister, the Labor Party failed to require Telstra to speed up digitisation of telephone exchanges, whereas the coalition has. When he was communications minister, the Labor Party failed to provide rural Australia with high speed digital data capacity. The coalition has. The Labor Party also failed to examine the operating definition of standard telephone services. The coalition is doing that. The Labor Party failed to provide any substantial support to meet the specific telecommunications needs of rural Australia. The coalition is doing that.The opposition opposed the coalition's idea of $250 million for regional telecommunications. The Labor Party failed to ensure that people in rural Australia continued to enjoy reasonably equivalent mobile phone coverage after the year 2000. The coalition is doing that. The Labor Party says one thing in government and does another in opposition. It is not moving forward to the 21st century. It is locked into the pre-1980s era. It is not moving forward to the 21st century where there are information workers and knowledge workers. The opposition does not understand that principle.The Leader of the Opposition gave a rolled gold guarantee, both tonight and on 16 March, and he said, `We will seek a mandate at the next election to repeal this legislation and we will expect the Senate to support us.' He is saying that he is going to the next election saying, `We will repeal this legislation.' By implication, he is saying that he will now support this legislation in the Senate, knowing that this legislation is not going to come in until after the next election.By implication, he will be supporting this legislation in the Senate, knowing that it does not start until after the next election because, if he wins, he will be able to repeal it but, if he does not win, we would have the mandate, and therefore it should progress. Therefore, the opposition should be supporting this particular bill with the idea of getting its mandate at the next election.The Prime Minister (Mr Howard) went to the community in the last election saying, `I want to sell one-third of Telstra,' and the community said, `Yes, okay. Sell one-third of Telstra.' He also said, `I will not sell any more of Telstra until I come back to you for approval.' These amendments are all about getting that approval from the community. At the next election they will have a clear choice: if they vote for the coalition, they want to have the rest of Telstra in the hands of the Australian people; if they do not, if they vote back the Labor Party, they obviously do not want the two-third sale happening. I think that is a fair choice for them to be deciding upon at the next election.The coalition inherited, unfortunately, huge government debt. The opposition leader said that debt is not a problem. If you ask people in my electorate of Cowan whether debt is a problem or not, they will say that debt is a problem. It is about $96 billion and the interest payment on that debt costs taxpayers about $8 billion per year. What we are trying to do here is start paying back some of the debt created by the Labor Party. The proceeds from the Telstra sale will allow the coalition to reduce its inherited debt by about 40 per cent, with massive immediate savings on interest payments and a massive reduction of the Beazley debt legacy which he left for future generations. The Leader of the Opposition quoted some obscure person, but Chris Richardson, a respected economist from Access Economics, says:If we pay off government debt, then we're saving money forever, and the net balance . . . is in favour of the Telstra sale to the tune of $1.5 billion a year. That's the saving in interest versus the . . . loss of income from Telstra.So we have a respected economist supporting the idea of the sale of Telstra. Let us look at what has been done internationally. On 5 March 1998 there was a story in the Wall Street Journal that said:Telecom deregulation in Britain delivered a nice surprise—What was that? It was jobs—as competition breaks out, service improves, prices drop and business booms.The article went on to talk about how British Telecom was criticised heavily for wanting to cut jobs and privatise. In fact, in the past four years British Telecom struck 7,500 jobs off its rolls, but rival UK companies added 19,500. So what does this mean? It means that competition is good for the economy and certainly is good in the telecommunications industry.Which countries have privatised carriers? Fully privatised carriers are in countries like Canada, Chile, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Philippines, the UK and the USA. So it is not going to be a brave new world. We have already had the experiences of other countries and what they are doing in this region of telecommunications.The Leader of the Opposition was talking about delivering in the bush and he was saying that no-one can ever guarantee that. We have gone one step further. We are putting these guarantees into the amendments today. What we are talking about is universal service obligations. We are going to be fining those suppliers if they do not perform. What better way of providing the leadership in doing this than by providing these guarantees?Where is the Labor Party on this issue? It seems to me that it is all over the place. One minute it is saying it does not want privatisation and then suddenly it does. One minute it is saying it wants to move into the 21st century and the next minute it is saying it does not want to. One minute it is making promises about tax cuts, reducing debt and other suggestions and when it gets back into power it does not do that. What we have here is a Labor Party that says one thing and does another. I think people in the constituency out there, particularly in Cowan, are tired of hearing one thing from the Labor Party and then it doing something else. What Australia requires in government is people who can stand by their word, not people who say one thing and do another.The Labor Party is all over the place on this issue. It used to say in government—and I could quote from Graham Richardson—that it was always a good idea to sell off Telstra. In fact, he quoted, I think, the former Prime Minister, Paul Keating, who wanted to sell off Telstra. But in opposition now it is saying it does not want to touch it. It is admitting that it is afraid. It is afraid of going into the 21st century. It is afraid of new ideas. It is afraid of expanding the ever-growing information industry and information technology. It is afraid of the burgeoning communications industry. It is afraid of all these things. Why? Because it wants to get back into government. It wants to get back to the way things were. It wants to get back into the fat of the lamb of looking after its mates in government.Where are the ideas coming from the Labor Party? I do not see much of them on the communications side of things. Who is the communications industry spokesman on this? I think it is Senator Schacht; I am not sure. I think their candidate in Dickson is now the official spokesman on communications—not even in the party, not even in the government, and this particular candidate is now its spokesman on it.I wrote a list of the points the Leader of the Opposition made. I did not get anything about the future in there. I got nothing about what they want to do. All they want to do is not privatise, but they have said that before. They said they were not going to privatise Qantas and they said they were not going to privatise the Commonwealth Bank. What happened? They did.The opposition leader talked about weasel words, weasel this and weasel that. That is very appropriate because I think his bluster was full of wind—more like The Wind in the Willows perhaps. The big badger of The Wind in the Willows was talking about the weasels. The weasels and the stoats are on the other side. We know who Rat is. We know who Mole is. We know who the big badger is. From the member for Werriwa (Mr Latham) today with his new book and with his brave new world ideas, we know who Toad is as well.The Labor Party are bereft of ideas; they have got none. They are old world. They are old ideas. They are not really on top of this whole debate. I recommend this bill to the House.18:30:002004Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—It is hard to believe the coalition would put up someone like the member for Cowan (Mr Richard Evans) as the government's first speaker after the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) in one of the most important debates we will have in the chamber. At least we have got a better coalition member about to contribute as their second speaker but I really have to say it was a shocker. The member for Cowan seems to be showing an obsession with animals—furry or otherwise—and the conclusion of his speech was consistent with past contributions he has made in this place—particularly about cats.First of all, I want to express the Labor Party's concern about the timing for the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . Just as we had the work for the dole scheme pulled out of a hat when the government was in trouble with the Bob Woods affair, we have had this Prime Minister (Mr Howard) pull the full Telstra privatisation rabbit out of the hat as the Prime Minister was copping an enormous amount of flak over his inability to enforce his code of conduct on the minister for coalmines, who happened to have $2 million worth of coalmining shares. That is the real reason why the government has made this announcement today. The reason why this legislation was introduced yesterday, is being debated today and will be voted on in the House of Representatives tomorrow is that the Prime Minister is feeling the heat from community concern about Senator Warwick Parer having $2 million worth of mining shares in complete breach of this government's code of conduct. That is why the Prime Minister announced, at the Liberal Party convention in Brisbane, that he would sell off all of Telstra.Even if that was the Prime Minister's intention, wouldn't you think that he would allow the people's house, the House of Representatives, a sufficient amount of time to debate the merits of his proposal? And yet we have the finance minister rising in this chamber late yesterday introducing the legislation, we were allowed overnight to study the detail of the legislation, and it will be voted on in the House of Representatives tomorrow. It is a disgrace. Few bills brought before this parliament will receive such scant analysis and such scant examination and debate. It says something about the way this parliament is being run under this Prime Minister when such important legislation is, as I say, introduced yesterday, debated today and voted on tomorrow. We can assure the government that it will get much more detailed scrutiny in the other place—in the Senate—and it certainly deserves to be debated thoroughly before final decisions are made, before the next election.I will run through the reasons why the opposition is opposed to this government's plans to sell off the remaining two-thirds of Telstra. The first point I would like to make is the obvious one. The government has put a limit of 35 per cent foreign ownership on the Telstra shares. Foreign ownership of Telstra today is about 12 per cent, I understand—certainly 12 per cent is the maximum limit—but we have gone from zero foreign ownership less than a year ago, to 12 per cent with the first slab sold, then to a maximum of 35 per cent if this government wins the next election! Then, quite clearly, 35 per cent of the dividends of Telstra will go offshore. That means there will be a cash flow of 35 per cent of Telstra's enormous profits which will leave this country year after year after year. The member for Northcott—or, rather, Boothby—is going to have to be very persuasive—TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—Northcott has been abolished.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—They have not named the seat after you yet, haven't they? The day will come when they can name a seat after him, but not until he dies. The member will have to be very persuasive before he can persuade me that it is a good thing for Australia to have up to 35 per cent of Telstra's profits sent overseas each year. Some in the government claim that this is going to be a good thing because all these overseas investors will have to bring money into the country to purchase the shares, so there will be a net capital inflow before the money leaves.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—You're a One Nation, are you?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I am certainly strongly opposed to your attempts to allow 35 per cent of Telstra's profits to be sent offshore each year. And whether or not the honourable member is opposed to the views of One Nation, I would have thought that there are some members of the Liberal Party, and I bet there are one or two in the National Party—starting with the member for Kennedy (Mr Katter)—who are opposed to this government selling off 35 per cent of Telstra shares to foreign owners.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—Only if you want it.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—If you are going to interject, you will have to interject clearly and not mumble, so that we can respond. Let me say to the member for Boothby that one of the problems you will face is that many of the companies and subsidiaries that will purchase those shares, which will be in the hands of foreign companies or foreign individuals, will be funded by overseas borrowings. We will actually see an increase in the level of overseas borrowings to fund the purchase of these shares. Australia's debt will go up as a result of the privatisation of these shares.TK6SOUTHCOTTDr Southcott—What? No!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—People opposite might laugh, but they might care to have a look at some of the debt structures that have been established to allow investments by overseas entities in existing Australian businesses. There are many examples that I do not need to go through here which demonstrate that the net result of these changes could well be an increase in the total level of foreign debt—not government debt, but the total level of Australia's foreign debt. This government already has a track record of backing away from foreign investment limitations in the telecommunications industry. At the last change of government there were restrictions on the level of foreign ownership in Optus, the second carrier. This government, under this Treasurer (Mr Costello), has watered down those foreign investment restrictions on Optus shares. I suppose the government could claim that is partly because Optus has not had a very successful time in the last few months. But you can clearly state today that the foreign ownership restrictions on Optus are much weaker than they were when this government was elected. I will predict that even if this government is re-elected, and there is a limit of 35 per cent on the total foreign ownership of Telstra shares after the sale of the remaining two-thirds, it will not stay at 35 per cent for long. You can bet your house, Mr Deputy Speaker, that within one term this government will water down those foreign ownership restrictions. It will shoot from 35 to a number much further north than 35 before very long.One of the difficulties that will flow from that is that there will be no-one there to look after the interests of Australia's telecommunications manufacturers. When we were elected in 1983, there was a very small telecommunications manufacturing industry. It was basically looking after the domestic market. It was inward looking. It was not looking for export opportunities. During the Hawke and Keating governments, we ended up with a whole series of initiatives that encouraged the development of an export oriented Australian telecommunications manufacturing industry. It has gone from exports of $50 million a year to almost $1 billion a year these days, in no small measure due to the industry development arrangements which all of the carriers were required to put in place under the former government.The great concern that we have is that industry that is crucial to the future development of our country will be at risk. It is no secret that pressure has been exerted on the telecommunications companies in the past to make sure they are sourcing their materials from Australian manufacturers, which then gives those companies the domestic base they need to look for export opportunities in other countries.I will give an example that is very topical for tonight—and I am sure some of the advisers in the box are well aware of this—and that is when the President of Argentina is speaking in the Great Hall later tonight I will bet that someone will mention that an Australian company provided the expertise to deliver remote mobile telephone services in Argentina. It was an Australian company which used software developed by Australians to make the Argentinean telephone system work. That company would not have been able to get that sale of Australian expertise to Argentina without our domestic base giving that company sufficient cash flow to develop that new and innovative technology. Where will the future sales to Argentina, the United States, Britain, Japan or Indonesia come from if this government simply says that we are just going to let the market forces rip in the way our telecommunications carriers source their materials?In making sure that Telstra stays in majority Australian ownership, it will be the government of the day that will be responsible for answering in this parliament to the Australian people. It will be the government of the day that will have to explain what Telstra's policies will be in sourcing its materials. That is one of the major concerns we have about this government selling off the remaining two-thirds of Telstra.It has also been quite instructive to watch the way the National Party has been squirm ing ever since the Prime Minister chose to unilaterally announce the sell-off of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra. It is quite clear now that there was no consultation whatsoever with the National Party before this decision was announced. You can understand why the National Party was not consulted: the Prime Minister would have had a bit of trouble looking some of those National Party backbenchers in the eye and assuring them that he could give his personal guarantee that rural services would not be affected by the sell-off.These National Party members, like us, have seen some of the Prime Minister's other personal assurances come to grief. We had not only the personal assurance from the Prime Minister that he would establish a much tougher code of practice or guidelines for ministerial behaviour. That has gone by the wayside. We had the Prime Minister today in question time slipping and sliding all over the dispatch box trying to avoid his personal assurance to older Australians that he would maintain the entitlements for pensioners—entitlements to things such as Commonwealth dental care, pharmaceuticals and access to public hospitals. These are the personal guarantees that the member for Bennelong, the Prime Minister of Australia, has given in the past. He has had no compunction whatsoever in walking away from them.Why would a National Party backbencher accept the personal guarantee from the member for Bennelong that cross-subsidies to rural services will continue? It is a bit of an issue if you live in a remote area because the cross-subsidies are quite enormous. There are cross-subsidies of up to $6,000 or more for Australians who live in remote communities.You can imagine what will happen if Telstra is fully privatised. The directors of Telstra will be making decisions every time they meet about the amount of capital they will be spending and the types of services they will be delivering in electorates right across in Australia—in country towns and in remote and isolated locations. In the past, ordinary Australians have been able to contact their local member and get them to stand in this House and raise issues of concern if people have been getting poor service, but the people of Australia will not be able to turn to the Australian government if there is inadequate service to people who live in rural areas. There will be no-one to make sure that those cross-subsidies continue to Australians who live in remote and isolated communities.In fact, the directors of those companies will be under a legal obligation under the Corporations Law to do whatever they can to maximise the profits to be distributed to their shareholders. Once the remaining two-thirds are privatised, there will be a legal obligation on the directors of Telstra to focus on and spend money in the areas that generate the greatest profit return.Mr Deputy Speaker, you do not need me to tell you that it will not take long before the diversion of profit into the central business districts, into the business services that deliver the greatest return to Telstra—those high profit areas—will result in capital being starved. There will be less capital spent in rural and remote communities. There will be a clear inability of people in remote areas of Australia to keep up with the technological changes that are always taking place in telecommunications.We also had a rather strange performance from the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Tim Fischer) on the Sunday program last Sunday, and I will quote some of the things he said:ISDN, for argument's sake, available not to ninety-three per cent of all Australians, but we're going to push that envelope further to ninety-six per cent of all Australians.Within ninety days I am determined to see that the technology in the country is not equal, but in some areas better than the suburbs . . . What the Deputy Prime Minister seemed to be saying was that, within 90 days, 96 per cent of all Australians would have access to ISDN. When we had someone translate his statements into English, we found out that what he was saying was that 96 per cent of Australians will be able to ask for ISDN and within 90 days they will be able to have ISDN installed if they are willing to pay a very large sum of money—I think it is $2,500 or more. If you happen to live in a city, I think it is several hundred dollars rather than several thousand dollars, yet we have the Deputy Prime Minister creating the impression that, within 90 days, whether or not you live in the bush or the city, you will have equal access to ISDN, which was a clear attempt to cause confusion and certainly led to many of the viewers being misled. The Deputy Prime Minister also failed to mention to the viewers of the Sunday program that ISDN technically cannot be delivered to farmers who live more than seven kilometres from an exchange. Once again, it is quite clear that the Deputy Prime Minister was rabbiting on about things he clearly had no idea about. The Deputy Prime Minister then made some comments about his concerns about the time taken to repair some of the telephone faults after the recent floods in some parts of the country. Laurie Oakes said to him:So if you can't fix it when you own it, how can you fix it when you sell it to someone else?The Deputy Prime Minister replied:Because we're in a competitive circumstance and there is the authorities which overarch the compliance of an Optus, of a Telstra, to a legal benchmarking.Again, when you translate that into English, I think the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that, because we have strong competition, that will ensure that companies will be placed under pressure to provide better service. This goes to the heart of my own personal concerns about the government's intentions here. Competition in telecommunications in Australia has been sacrificed on the alter of privatisation. Instead of the lead-up to open competition in telecommunications on 1 July last year, instead of that focus being on maximising the competition in the Australian telecommunications market, there was a focus from this government and the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) on maximising the return to the Australian government from the one-third sell off. I suspect that Senator Alston is not really the minister for communications today. The minister for communications in Australia today is the Minister for Finance and Administration, the member for Macarthur (Mr Fahey). We might as well have another person sitting in the advisers' box who comes from that department, because my suspicion is that they are the people who are really deciding what is happening within Telstra. That is the minister who is deciding what is happening in the telecommunications market.During the time I had the honour to be minister for communications I had many people come to me and say that they were concerned about the imbalance in our market. Yes, Optus was new and growing and providing some competition on mobiles, international calls and long distance calls, but Telstra was the 600 pound gorilla. Telstra was the 600 pound gorilla that could set the prices in the marketplace. They also said that Telstra's behaviour had to be influenced by direct ministerial intervention and polite and persuasive discussions with the management of Telstra to have Telstra behave the right way in a whole number of areas.I do not know if you have seen the latest trailer for a new movie called Godzilla; the member for Boothby (Dr Southcott) may have seen this trailer. The way this trailer works is that there is an elderly gentleman on the end of a wharf in New York and a wave of water starts to approach the elderly gentleman at the end of the wharf. The wave gets bigger and bigger and some enormous animal gets closer and closer to the end of the wharf. You do not actually see it in the trailer, but I am sure that when the film comes out we will see that there is a 600 tonne Godzilla loose in New York. What has happened under this government is that the 600 pound gorilla has turned into a 600 tonne Godzilla. Telstra, the Godzilla of the Australian telecommunications market, is behaving in a way that restricts competition. You only have to look at the levels of service deterioration that have been reported today to this parliament and you only have to look at the complaints that are there from Optus and the other independent service providers that Telstra is not behaving in a way that delivers the cheapest prices and the best services to customers.That is what we want to ensure. We want to ensure that the 600 tonne Godzilla is kept under control. We want to make sure that Godzilla delivers cheaper prices and better service to the customers. You do not achieve that by selling off all of the shares and abolishing the power of the minister to direct Telstra to do what is in the national interest rather than what is in the commercial interest of Telstra shareholders.18:50:002008Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—In the debate already today we have heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) state his firm opposition to the privatisation of Telstra. An earlier Labor leader—and his mentor—Bob Hawke, in the 1985 Chifley lecture, asked the rhetorical question: what in the name of reason is the justification for breaking up and selling off the great and efficient national assets like the Commonwealth Bank, Telecom, TAA and Qantas? The Leader of the Opposition today sounded very much like Bob Hawke back in 1985. But Labor have some form on this. We know Labor's form. Within seven years, the Commonwealth Bank was sold, TAA was sold and Qantas was sold. The Labor Party have been all over the place on this issue.This exchange occurred specifically regarding Telecom with Paul Keating in 1994 when he was on the Lateline program with Kerry O'Brien:KERRY O'BRIEN : So it doesn't matter whether it's publicly owned or privately owned?PAUL KEATING : Not of its essence, no.KERRY O'BRIEN : Then why don't you sell it?PAUL KEATING : Well, it depends what environment the Government has chosen. The Government has chosen to have Telecom in public ownership and to set up a competitive framework with a duopolist. Now, we're now considering where that duopoly goes after 1997.The Labor Party have restated their commitment now to keep Telstra in public ownership. There was even some talk at the Labor Party conference of perhaps buying back the Telstra shares from the mums and dads who bought them. If the Labor Party is really committed to government ownership and to state ownership of government business enterprises, then what they should do is put up a policy motion at the ALP conference and propose to renationalise Telstra.Then we would see the cost of what their policy is. At the moment, the dividends that we receive from Telstra are only half of what it costs us to service the debt of having Telstra in government hands. By privatising Telstra, we would be able to save something like $3 billion on our government debt and reduce our government debt by $40 billion. Historically, privately run firms have been more efficient than publicly run government business enterprises. That seems to be the general consensus and the evidence is in on that.Government business enterprises have greatly improved their efficiency since the late 1970s—and I recognise that—but that was coming off a very low base. Organisations like Australia Post and Telecom were coming off a very low base in labour productivity and total factor productivity.One of the problems has been the absence of commercial practice, the absence of incentives for managers and the fact that government business enterprises are not subject to the discipline of capital markets, shareholders or takeovers. There is no incentive in GBEs to minimise cost and no incentive to make a profit. The problem with the community service obligations is that up until recently they have largely been hidden. They have not been transparent at all.There is no reason why you cannot have Telstra, privately run, owned by the private sector, owned by the mums and dads of Australia, and have community service obligations transparent and remove the cross-subsidies that already exist in Telstra. The United States has never had publicly owned phone companies, yet they manage to have community service obligations. People in the bush in America manage to get access to a phone.The ALP also argues they want us to consider technology that has not been invented yet. This is an argument to keep Telstra in government hands, that we should keep it on the off chance there might be some technology that is invented in the future so people will be able to get access to that—the emerging and new technologies. As the Leader of the Opposition and also the former Minister for Communications and the Arts, the member for Dobell (Mr Lee), understand, legislation is already there that deals with emerging and new technologies and there is no problem in the future for this parliament to legislate for the private companies to provide these sorts of things if we are dealing with a privately run Telstra.The community service obligations is a job for regulation. It is not something that requires us to own it to deliver it. Privatising Telstra would also give Telstra access to the capital markets to develop these technologies. Vining and Boardman in a 1989 study compared the performance of 500 firms, both private and government business enterprises. They found robust evidence that publicly owned enterprises are less profitable and less efficient than private corporations. I have already mentioned some of the advantages of privatising. The fact that we can reduce our government debt by $40 billion will reduce our savings on our interest bill by $3 billion a year.Again, Labor has been inconsistent on the subject of privatisation. They privatised Aussat, the satellite. Graham Richardson in his book Whatever It Takes indicated that the debate, rather than being about greater competition in the early 1990s in telecommunications, was actually about privatising Telstra. They were Graham Richardson's words. The privatisation of Telstra that is being proposed would be the second largest privatisation in the world. Only the Japanese Telecom would be larger. It may be—and it is covered in the legislation—a 600 pound gorilla, but it would probably need two gulps at the share market. It is likely that we would see two tranches in terms of a public float.Former Minister for Finance Kim Beazley talked about the arguments in favour of selling off public assets. He said that the arguments in favour of privatisation were, firstly, to improve the efficiency of government business enterprises by exposing them to competition in the market for their products. Yes, I agree with that. I think Telstra fits this case. The second argument in favour of privatisation was to reduce the budget deficit and thus the level of public sector debt. That is correct. We would do this by $40 billion. The third argument in favour of privatisation was to allow the enterprises to raise new equity capital rather than relying on government capital funding. Those are the Leader of the Opposition's criteria for privatisation. He should tell us why doesn't the proposed privatisation of Telstra fit that criteria.Again, regarding the performance of Telstra, a 1993 study showed that while Telstra was under government control it was performing at about 80 per cent of world best practice. In fact, the member for Dobell was the minister at the time. What Labor are proposing in us not repaying our debt—they want to keep the debt—is the equivalent of an intergenerational Concorde scheme. Some people might have heard that in Sydney there is this scheme going around called the Concorde scheme. The passengers, the copilots and the pilots come along with $2,000. It is totally illegal. What generally happens is the passengers get caught paying $2,000 and the pilots go off with $16,000.Labor's attitude towards debt is equivalent to an intergenerational Concorde scheme. The people who have to pick up the interest on the debt and who have to continue to pay it are the younger generation. It is the whole issue of intergenerational equity, which we are going to cover in our charter of budget honesty. At the next election there is now a very clear choice between the Labor Party, who have said Telstra is going to stay in government hands, and the Liberal and National parties, who propose to privatise it.Using the proceeds of that privatisation to reduce debt will save the interest on long-term debt for the government by $3 billion a year. That is $3 billion a year long term that a Liberal-National Party government would have to spend on health care, aged care or tax cuts—$3 billion available for recurrent spending every year.Privatisation not only reduces debt, reduces the interest and structurally improves the budget position but also allows greater share ownership and participation. It allows more rational management and pricing and can also improve competition. Again, Telstra's labour productivity is still poor compared with its overseas counterparts and privatisation would help their productivity. That has been the experience around the world. That is consistent with the historical empirical evidence.The partial privatisation of Telstra was a great success—1.8 million Australians took part in the float, including over half a million Australians for the first time. Direct share ownership now stands at 29 per cent of adult Australians. Forty per cent of adult Australians actually take part in the stock market including indirectly. Only the United States has a higher level. Ninety-two per cent of Telstra employees took up the share ownership scheme. Surely that is a big vote of confidence by Telstra employees for the partial privatisation of Telstra. The Labor Party has no response to this increasing level of mum and dad share ownership. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Sitting suspended from 7.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.Ministerial Statements2010201020:30:002010Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPPrimary Industries and Energy10—by leave—The purpose of my address tonight is to provide the House with an up-to-date assessment of relevant agricultural reform and trade policy developments gathered during my recent mission to Europe and Korea between 3 March and 14 March 1998. My visits in Europe included attendance at the OECD agriculture ministers' meeting and a Quint meeting of agriculture ministers from Australia, the United States, Canada, the European Commission and Japan. Bilateral discussions were also held with US Secretary Glickman, EU Commissioner Fischler, UK Agriculture Minister Cunningham and Japanese Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Shimamura. I also met with industry representatives, including the President of the National Farmers Union in the United Kingdom.In Korea, I met with a range of senior ministers and industry representatives includ ing: Dr Kim-Sung Hoon, Minister for Agriculture and Forestry; Mr Park Tae-Young, Minister for Industry and Energy; and Dr Joo Yang-Ja, Minister for Health and Welfare. I also held discussions with a wide range of Korean agricultural resources and energy industry leaders, including meat industry representatives and Korean worsted spinners and weavers industry representatives.The timing of the OECD meeting, which was attended by 29 ministers for agriculture in the developed world, was also particularly relevant because of preparations now under way for the 1999 agricultural negotiations mandated in the Uruguay Round, a prospective new comprehensive WTO round at the turn of the century and the domestic agricultural policy reform agendas being considered in a number of countries, including the agenda 2000 reform package being developed by the European Commission.The OECD meeting focused on a stocktake of agricultural and trade reforms in member countries since the 1987 OECD ministerial principles for agricultural policy reform were agreed and consideration of the need and scope for further reforms. These deliberations were drawn together in a joint ministerial communique at the end of the session. Australia's main goals at this meeting were to secure recognition of the need for further agricultural policy reform, acknowledgment of the 1999 WTO agricultural negotiations as the key vehicle for further reform, endorsement for further analytical work by the OECD to assist forthcoming WTO negotiations and negotiation of a reform oriented communique to progress the removal of support and protection for agriculture through greater market orientation.Bearing in mind that the OECD is a multilateral organisation of member countries with a strong European Union membership of 15 countries as well as other agricultural protectionist countries such as Japan, Korea, Switzerland and Norway, the above objectives, though realistic, were never going to be easy as such countries jockey for position in the context of the forthcoming WTO agricultural negotiations. In these circumstances, Australia, with general support from New Zealand and USA—and limited support from some EU delegates such as the United Kingdom and Sweden—did in my view manage to effectively hold the line and maintain the essential reform principles. This work was reflected in a communique, together with secretariat background papers, which recognised that, while progress has been made in agricultural policy reforms since 1987, more needs to be done, particularly since progress in policy reform has been uneven across countries and commodities and that the agricultural sector in many countries is still substantially supported and not sufficiently responsive to market signals.The communique reaffirmed the commitment to the long-term goal of domestic and international policy reform to allow for a greater influence of market signals as contained in article 20 of the Uruguay Round agreement on agriculture and the commitment to undertake further negotiations as foreseen in that article. Importantly, the communique also outlined a future role for the OECD to contribute to the achievement of future goals through analysis and evaluation of domestic policies, agricultural markets and trade developments and the scope for new policy approaches which, as for the Uruguay Round, should provide useful material in negotiations. It will now be necessary for Australia and others to ensure a suitable work program is fully implemented on a timely basis.Despite these achievements we have a lot more to do. In Paris it was a matter of considerable concern to fair trading country representatives, including me, that most European Union and other European countries, as well as Japan and Korea, mounted a coordinated and multifaceted campaign to delete and detract reformist goals from the communique wording at every opportunity, with some success given their numbers. The extent of the obstructionism which I observed and encountered illustrates the challenge for Australia and other low cost exporters in the next round of WTO agricultural negotiations.Some delegations clearly sought to wind the clock back on reform with diversionary tactics related to matters such as food security and the so-called multifunctionality of agriculture—rural development, environmental safeguards, regional employment and so on—a new approach to non-trade concerns by the protectionists which, if not tackled appropriately, risks becoming entrenched as justification for prolonging or enhancing production related agricultural income and price supports rather than the use of targeted and transparent policy measures decoupled from production to achieve these objectives. It is clear to me that both food security and multifunctionality will need to be confronted in the WTO negotiations context.The Quint meeting of agriculture ministers from Australia, the United States of America, Japan, Canada and the European Union was instigated and hosted by Commissioner Fischler following the OECD meeting. This meeting was explicitly not a negotiating forum but rather an opportunity to exchange views on domestic agricultural and agricultural trade policy reform in a smaller group and to improve understanding of the scope and need for agricultural reform. The meeting provided a further opportunity for me to explain in some detail both the facts and the underlying policy features of our domestic policy reforms, including the integration of deregulated agricultural policy with our wider economic and social policy agendas.I was also able to argue that such an approach has delivered results in rural Australia despite adverse market and seasonal conditions in many industries and that such a policy approach could have applications in other countries, particularly those represented at the meeting. I believe this was a major lubricant for Quint discussion on both domestic reform and the closely associated trade policy action issues.I was able to directly address the separate issues of multifunctionality and food security which arose at both the OECD and Quint meetings. While no conclusions were reached, the participants were left in no doubt that rural and regional development, environmental improvement and maintenance of the social fabric of rural areas were not only issues in Europe and Japan but were very real political, social and economic challenges in Australia and other efficient exporting countries. This point appears not to be adequately understood in the international arena where the so-called `old' countries seem to feel they have a monopoly on such challenges.With food security we addressed the scope for more open trading arrangements as a basis for enhancing security rather than protectionist stances which inhibit economic development. We have much further to go in this debate including, I suspect, consideration of the scope for the new round of agricultural negotiations to address how governments might facilitate supply commitments to importing countries recognising, however, that commercial operations—not governments—undertake the actual trade in commodities. Greater recourse to improved long-term contracts, joint ventures and more open foreign investment flows are well-known examples of how private commercial mechanisms can improve food supply security.An important point from my extensive discussions in Paris and London is that while reform of the CAP remains a major challenge for Australia and other fair-trading countries, it is also clear that the pace and extent of CAP reform is a matter of debate within the European Union. It is my observation that, despite the massive sums of taxpayers' and consumer funds transferred to European farmers over the years, there is still extensive discontent amongst European farmers and wide ranging demonstrations in which European farmers express their grievances, often in destructive ways. This provides visual evidence that the CAP is not and cannot be the long-term solution to Europe's farming problems, and massive transfers which distort market signals will always create inefficiency and distribution problems, creating yet further regulation and distortions while failing to adequately address the social issues of agriculture directly.Even within Europe, the CAP is increasingly being regarded as a heavy-handed mechanism, restricting farmer enterprise and flexibility and limiting the capacity of the more efficient European farmers to move forward in grasping market opportunities as they develop. It is of some encouragement that forward looking governments and farmers in some parts of Europe are starting to realise the problems of the CAP, but we have much further to go to achieve reasonable and equitable outcomes.This matter was amply addressed in a recent UK House of Commons Agriculture Committee report which questions the compatibility of CAP reform proposals with both current and future WTO agreements. It raises the dangerous prospect of new domestic surpluses and intervention stocks, and describes EU agriculture policy as likely to be in the moral foothills of the next WTO round.Korea is Australia's third-largest trading partner and second largest export market. My visit to Korea was at a time of unprecedented change in the Korean economy and I was the first Australian minister since the new President and government had been appointed. I believe the Korean government much appreciated an early visit by an Australian minister to fully demonstrate our goodwill to Korea at this time of difficulty when the new government is actively pursuing economic restructuring.Against this background, my visit provided an important opportunity to convey to the new Korean administration and senior industry representatives that we in Australia highly value the strong bilateral economic relationship, and that the Australian government and industry are fully committed to working closely with Korea to ensure its successful recovery and long-term future. The visit also allowed me to undertake a first-hand assessment of the changes in the Korean economy and to gain a better understanding of areas of potential concern, together with new opportunities for Australian industries and how best the government in Australia can facilitate these opportunities.The Australian government's commitment to assisting Korea has been demonstrated through the IMF contribution and the establishment of a $300 million National Interest export credit guarantee facility which is additional to other credit insurance facilities in Australia. I advised the Korean government that these combined credit facilities in Aus tralia cover exports worth some $1 billion, which is much greater than is generally realised.Agriculture and resources and energy are major users of these credit facilities, and I emphasised strongly to Korean ministers that the use of these facilities by Australian exporters should not be constrained by Korean authorities offering preferential treatment to other export countries under the foreign exchange regulations, as is currently the case on some agricultural products.I urged the Korean government to provide a waiver from such regulations for a range of agricultural products to enable them to utilise National Interest and other credit facilities, and to compete on the same terms in the Korean market with other exporters who have already received a waiver on a number of key commodities, including beef. Such a waiver should be forthcoming given the goodwill demonstrated by the Australian government and industries at this time of difficulty, and I am encouraged by the assurances provided to me by the Korean authorities that Australia's request will be given full consideration on the basis of equitable treatment with others.On industry specific matters, my recent visit to Korea provided the opportunity to discuss the importance to the Korean economy of reliable supplies of agricultural, resources and energy products, and to confirm that Australian industries can deliver in all these areas. I stressed the point that ongoing trade with primary, resources and energy industries will clearly help Korea to improve its manufacturing and other export capacities, which are essential to the recovery of the domestic economy and to overcoming the present currency difficulties.I also confirmed with the Korean government the enhanced need for joint commercial ventures and investments in both countries on a more deregulated basis covering the major primary, resources and energy industries, as well as joint research and technology exchanges in these areas.I am pleased to announce that the Korean government has agreed that Korea will move to a manufacturer determined shelf life for UHT milk. This amendment to the food code is very good news for our dairy manufacturers as it substantially extends shelf life and opens the way for useful market growth in UHT milk which was previously made impractical by the short shelf life.I also received an assurance from the President of the Korean Livestock Promotion and Marketing Organisation that beef tenders will reopen when present high stocks are reduced to more normal levels. This underlines the importance of the Australian beef export industry having a waiver on credit related regulations equal to that given to other suppliers, and I underlined the importance of competitively priced Australian beef to Korean consumers at a time when their disposable income is declining, and the availability of good quality, reasonably-priced beef is essential. In Korea, I also addressed a range of quarantine matters of bilateral concern in which we engendered an improved understanding of Australia's position.In conclusion, let me say that our trade with Korea is dominated by agricultural, resources and energy commodities, including coal, iron ore, aluminium, gold, beef and sugar, and Australia is well placed to continue to provide Korea with these products which will continue to be crucial to Korea turning its economy around through improving its export performance. Korea is undergoing a period of difficulties and this is a time when Australia will stand by such an important trading partner, which is a matter of importance to the Koreans as well as to Australia.It is encouraging to see the determination and readiness of the Korean government and industry to face up to the essential disciplines and adjustments in their economy at this stage, which I am sure will pay dividends in the future, despite short term costs. I am confident Korea can overcome its present problems.20:46:002014O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—by leave—I welcome this opportunity to respond to the statement just made by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson) following his recent overseas trip and the discussions that he has outlined. In many of these areas we do have a bipartisan position, so a number of the comments that I make simply will reinforce some things the minister has said. I will also make some suggestions about some of the ways that we see Australia's agricultural trade policy being enhanced and developed in the forthcoming years.On both sides of the House we recognise that it is vital for Australia to develop and maintain representation at ministerial level at talks of this nature. They go a long way to building vital personal relationships that make a significant difference in trade opportunities. I would also like to emphasise to the House that, at the ALP's national conference in Hobart earlier this year, we re-emphasised in our agricultural policy platform that a firm commitment to the concept of access to international markets is a key plank of future agricultural trade opportunities. I would like to quote two aspects of that platform. Firstly:Labor realises the importance of improved access to international markets as a key condition of developing the customer base for Australian agriculture and fisheries, and remains determined that access for agriculture be a central consideration in international trade negotiations at all levels.I think that is a key point, because during the eighties and the development of the first GATT round significant resources and effort were put into asserting the right of agriculture to be a key plank of international trade negotiations and the first GATT agreement. Secondly:Labor accepts that production must be related to realistic international and domestic market trends. There will be direct local and regional communication links to all facets of the market, with producers able to take maximum advantage of new market knowledge and opportunities.I think there is a very direct link between that trade policy and the communications strategy which the nation embraces. I will be speaking about that a little later during debate in this place.There is one essential difference between the minister and me on the emphasis that ought to be applied in these trade negotiations. I go back to a statement the minister made which was published in the Australian in January last year. He said:Australia should focus more on improving its exports of raw materials rather than developing processing industries.He also said:"It is likely that improving the quality of our raw materials will become much more important than value-adding."On our side of the House we have taken a completely different stance. We believe—and again it is stated in our national policy platform—that the future for Australia's trade in the area of agriculture lies particularly in intensive value adding and in applying intensive effort to open up market opportunities for value added products. We understand very well that means something of a shift in the focus of our international trade negotiations.The minister well pointed to the growing dilemma in these international trade negotiations as countries begin to use farm policy as rural policy as they focus on community objectives such as jobs in their country towns and as they focus on issues such as food security as reasons not to liberalise their trade. As the ground begins to shift, we too understand that our ground needs to shift in the debates, in the arguments and in the case that Australia puts. I am signalling that in trade talks over the years—including Australia's very active and pro-active role in the Cairns Group—there has at all times been a major emphasis on trying to drive open market opportunities for what we call bulk commodities and bulk products.I am signalling that, whilst the opposition would maintain the same effort and commitment to international negotiation and Australia's international presence in these sorts of discussions and talks, we would try to drive open opportunities for value added products further up the ladder. We think that is consistent with a broader rural policy of trying to improve profitability and productivity, and trying to increase the jobs that flow off our agricultural base.During a trip to Europe in the second half of last year I visited the UK, Europe and Malaysia. In my own discussions with trade officers at various levels—including a very interesting session with the Cairns Group delegation, which I will talk about in a mo ment—I picked up some common themes. One of those themes was that it is going to be very hard to get the Europeans in particular to accept that the hundreds of billions of dollars of government support and consumer cross-subsidies that go into supporting their agricultural base have to be broken down quickly. It is going to remain a major task.On the same hand, I believe that there is a significant role for the Cairns Group to play. I pick up on something that the minister has mentioned in his speech. He has mentioned that he was quite surprised to see the extent to which some of the countries were undermining the debate for reformist goals. But I noticed from the speech that he did get support from the US, and that is a promising sign. In these negotiations I think it behoves Australia to drive a very hard bargain with our Cairns Group partners. Just as they had a significant role to play with us in developing the successes in the first round, as agreed at the Uruguay Round, so too will they need to be developed again.I notice that the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) has joined us in the chamber. As I recall, he was the trade minister up to a couple of weeks before the actual signing off of the documents, and he has been through all this in all its detail. I am sure he would agree that again the Australian government will have to apply significant resources to driving the Cairns Group and to driving our trading partners to tackle this $280 billion of agricultural subsidy, as has been reported by the minister, from the OECD countries. To just take it in context, that is almost three times the whole budget of the Australian government being applied in one hit to assisting particular farm sectors.The point I am making is that Australia does intend to move further up the value adding tree and, in doing so, whilst we maintain a very public and heavy commitment to driving trade opportunities and applying the resources to trade opportunities, as our own interests go up the value adding tree, so too will the need for the trade negotiation focus to be up at the same level.Whilst in the UK I came across people from the Tesco and Sainsburys supermarket chains. I was rather disturbed to find that while they were quite keen about providing access to Australian product they were also highly questioning of our ability to reliably provide horticultural product that was of a quality standard and reliably supplied. This comes back to a very clear need for Australia to ensure that its producing sector and its marketing sector—especially if we are going to encourage them to broaden the base where they do their business in these times when demand may fall off from Asia—understand very clearly what is required of them as suppliers to these markets. That is a message that sometimes needs to be driven home very firmly.I was a little puzzled not to find—`puzzled' is perhaps not the word; I should say that I was hoping to find—something of an answer in the minister's statement to a dilemma that I have been trying to work out the answer to in observing trade policy as it has been unfolding in recent months. A number of decisions have been taken by the government in specific industries—to quote a few: salmon was one, chicken was another, pork was another, the scrapping of sugar tariffs was another—where it seems to me that there has been a move to accelerate Australia's trade bona fides and where we appear to be trading off these industries in return for something else on the trade agenda. But I have not seen what it is. That is not a reasonable position for us to take. The government needs to understand that in our years in office we drove this trade agenda very hard. In driving the trade agenda very hard, we signed up to specific commitments, and other countries did too. From this side of the House, our trade position now is that there is no need for Australia to go any faster into these fields unless there is a very genuine quid pro quo benefit to be seen from our own givings.4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—Reciprocity, is it?CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—In those industries, I am not sure what they have been. Trade-offs is a better term, I suppose, than givings.I am sure that in the talks the minister has had there has been some focus on quarantine policy. I imagine that discussions took place about the suspicions, I guess, that we have that a number of countries are now starting to adopt border barriers that are sanitary, phytosanitary or technical in some way. I did notice, for instance, in the chicken debate that, where the USA were taking a complaint against Australia's approach to something, they were on the same hand protesting that the Europeans were taking exactly the same position as we were.In that situation, we have to understand that quarantine policy will come under scrutiny. Our science has to stand up to that international scrutiny, but we need to be particularly aggressive. As we conduct this battle to gain better access for Australian commodities, we need to understand that agricultural tariffs are in many cases eight to 10 times higher than industrial or manufactured tariff barriers. Export subsidies are rife for agricultural products but in a lot of areas they are nil for manufactured products. As we move up our value adding tree the battle will be harder to find access for those markets and we have to be prepared to put the effort into it. I would like to have seen the minister's statement give some focus to the need for these world trading partners to recognise that there has to be a place for higher value added products from Australia in the mix.In summary, the minister's statement is something of a fabulous travelogue. It has told us of all the places he has been to and of all the people he has met. I accept that it is hard work and that it has to be done. As with so many of these things—it is probably not understood outside these processes—personal links and contacts do make a difference. Not one of us would resile in any way from that. Just as I think the minister was wrong with his public statement early last year about what our priority should be in the way we approach trade and the kind of product we try to promote, I think he is wrong not to give greater emphasis in these talks to the fact that there have to be these opportunities for value added products; that is where we have to go.We need more in our agenda for the agenda 2000 program. We need to be very up-front with a strong ask of our Cairns Group trading partners and anyone else who will be in the game with us. This next round will be a very tough round. The signals coming from the Europeans are that they will be very hard to shift.4K4ANDERSONMr Anderson—And the Asians.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFE—And also the Asians. We know that. We need to provide some leadership at this point. It is only a couple of years away. We need to be prepared to put the resources into making sure that effort is there.As I have signalled from our national conference policy statement, this is a bipartisan approach. Both sides of the House recognise the need for a strong and tough presence for Australia in these trade negotiations. I am signalling that we are taking a more committed approach to access for value added products, as I think that that will become a significant part of the agenda. Whilst we understand the concerns of the countries which talk in terms of food security—it is a legitimate psychological concern of some nations which have experienced some things that certainly we have not experienced—it is not a reason, as the minister has flagged, to restate and reclaim old grounds. It is just another area that we need to be aware of as we mount our case and our arguments.I thank the House for the opportunity to respond. I am glad to see the minister back in Australia. I understand that he is having Cairns Group negotiations this week. I wish him well with those and hope that he has picked up a couple of the points that I have made.Bills2017Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills: NRS Levy Imposition Bill 1997 Telecommunications Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1997 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1997-98 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1997-98 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 1997-98 Bills2017The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request: Productivity Commission (Repeals, Transitional and Consequential Amendments) Bill 1996 Bills2017r4822017Debate resumed.21:06:002017Southcott, Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Before the break we were discussing the privatisation of Telstra. Karl Marx ended his communist mainfesto 150 years ago with these words:When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character.He was saying that the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie would end only when the capitalist system had been destroyed and the nation-state was controlling the means of production, distribution and exchange of industry. For a long time, this was a fundamental principle for Marxists and for communists around the world.When Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba in 1959, he seized the assets of a private telephone company, ITT. Thirty-five years later he sold off 49 per cent of the Cuban telephone company to Mexican and Italian phone companies. In 1995 Albania, for a long time one of the most recalcitrant communist states and one of the most isolated communist states in the world, established legislation to provide for the privatisation of their telco organisation.In South Africa, the ANC, for so long out of power, together with the South African Communist Party, in 1997 privatised 30 per cent of their national carrier, Telkom. What that shows is that, while Communist parties around the world have been able to give up the principle of state ownership of government business enterprises, the ALP still remains committed to state ownership. The dinosaurs of the Australian Labor Party still believe in it and we want to know why.We know that since 1921 the ALP has had as its party objective the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange for industry. It has been there since 1921. When Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party, he removed the socialist objective from British Labour's platform. We want to know why Labor is unable or unwilling to remove the socialist objective from its platform. I do not think that the members of the Labor Party or the Leader of the Opposition are Marxists, communists or even socialists, but on the issue of privatisation the ALP is inconsistent and confused. After all, what is different about Telstra when you compare it with the Commonwealth Bank? What is different about Telstra when you compare it with Qantas? What is so special about Telstra compared with the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories?When the ALP was in government it even privatised part of Telecom. It sold off Aussat. As we reflect on places around the world, it is fair to say that in Britain Tony Blair perhaps reflects his times. One of the features that we have seen in recent years has been the increase in share ownership amongst the Australian people. We now have the second highest levels of share ownership around the world. John Howard has stated two goals that we should aim towards and they are the twin goals of making Australia the great share owning democracy in the world and making Australia the second financial centre in the Asia-Pacific after Tokyo. Australian mums and dads want to own shares. Only the Labor Party will deny them.21:10:002018McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4CanberraALP00—Obviously, like my colleagues, I rise to oppose the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and to support the remarks made by my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, Kim Beazley, earlier this evening, and in particular to expand on some of the points he made where he outlined some important issues of concern for us, particularly as they relate to my area as shadow minister for finance, and the budgetary impli cations of what is being undertaken here. That will be the principal focus of my comments.Before I move to that, however, I want to refer to some remarks made by the Minister for Finance and Administration (Mr Fahey) in the introduction to the bill. In comparing Telstra with other organisations and this parliament having had to deliberate on the role of public versus private and Australian versus domestic investment, the minister very succinctly summarised the distinguishing characteristic. As he said in his speech, `Telstra has a vital, continuing, strategic role in the national economy', to which I say, `Hear, hear.' Unfortunately, after we agree with that conclusion, we diverge about the lesson we draw from it.It is a significant concern that, if this bill becomes law—that is, if it is passed by the parliament and then if the coalition is re-elected is therefore able to proclaim this law—the minister for communications, whoever it may be from time to time, will lose the capacity to give directions to Telstra. That would be a significant inhibition on our capacity as a nation to pursue and exercise our democratic interest in that vital continuing strategic role in the national economy.Why is it that we are dealing with this bill and why are we dealing with it now? Of course we are dealing with it now because it was a political escape route for the Prime Minister (Mr Howard) confronted with a significant political embarrassment relating to Senator Parer and an attempt to change the agenda. The last time there was such a significant political embarrassment and the need to change the agenda we had the announcement of our exciting tax adventure. This time we had the proposal to sell all of Telstra. The only question remaining is: what will he do next? Many Australians are asking the same question. It is fascinating that such a major decision can be made without even a budget submission.Against that background, the two issues that I wish to refer to are, as I said, the implications for this bill on the budget bottom line, about which I think there is a profound misunderstanding, and a need for some more accurate assessment, some more empirical assessment of its implications, and I will deal with it in terms of the claim that is made that there is support for this legislation in the hope that there will be some sort of efficiency gains by the transfer of Telstra to private ownership. Essentially the argument comes down to those two things. One is that somehow or other we will get a more efficient telecommunications sector as a consequence of the sale and the second is that we will get some benefits for the fiscal situation of the Commonwealth with regard to debt and the budget bottom line.Others will deal at greater length with the debate about the claims of efficiency gains by transfer to the private sector. Other than the most mystical of misty-eyed enthusiasts for privatisation, no-one believes that efficiency gains come by magic. They come from some changes in the management structure and approach and the opening up of greater possibilities for an organisation transferred from the public sector to the private.What are the constraints from which people believe Telstra might be relieved by being transferred from the public to the private sector? In essence, there are three. There will be constraints about the number of people it has to employ and the conditions under which they work. There could be relief from the artificial constraint about purchasing and industry development requirements imposed on Telstra, although the government claims that it will not allow that to change. And there are constraints upon a publicly owned telecommunications company that it may have to provide services, particularly regional services, that are uneconomic as a requirement of its public sector ownership.That means that, to the extent that there are to be efficiency gains from the transfer, they will be at the expense of the jobs and conditions of people who work for Telstra, the industry development capacity of Telstra to contribute to our telecommunications and electronics industry, and the provision of services to regional Australians. It is against that backdrop—which others can expand on, having more time and opportunity to do so—that I come to the very important question of the implications of the sale of Telstra for the budget bottom line.Up until now, we have had a very static analysis of what is a dynamic fiscal circumstance. Let us think about the basic assessments that people are making. The financial commentators are saying that generally the accepted figure—and I think it is probably correct—is that the Commonwealth might make $40 billion from the sale. That will enable it to make a public debt interest saving, at the current cost of debt to the Commonwealth of about six per cent—it is slightly less, but let us round it up to six per cent—of $2.4 billion.The most simplistic and crude assessment is that there is a $2.4 billion saving to the budget bottom line. That is obviously wrong because one needs to count against that the dividend that the Commonwealth receives for its two-thirds ownership, which in 1997-98 is $1.2 billion. That leads people to conclude that, therefore, we are going to have $1.2 billion a year to contribute either to new expenditure programs or to help fund tax cuts because this will be a recurrent bottom line improvement to the budget. On certain assumptions about year 1, that is correct.What that static analysis fails to take into account is that, over the period since Telstra has been corporatised, since there has been a dividend-paying corporation called Telstra, the increase in dividends to the Commonwealth from Telstra has averaged 15.6 per cent. It is not 15.6 per cent every year, and it needs to be recognised that dividend payments do rise and fall in different years, but there has been a clear, distinct trend and the trend has averaged at a 15.6 per cent increase per year.As you would expect, the international experience is that telecommunications companies in dominant market positions in the late 1990s, at the end of this century and into the next, are making substantial profit increases. There is nothing extraordinary about that. But what does that mean? It means that we are now dealing not with a static analysis of an extrapolation from the first year that there is perhaps a $1.2 billion bottom line gain to the budget; it means that that flat bottom line change to the budget of the $2.4 billion saving is being provided at the expense of what has been a dividend stream increasing at 15 per cent per year.That illustrates the point that the Leader of the Opposition made in his remarks that inevitably there will be a crossover point. There will be a point at which, far from assisting the budget bottom line, the sale of Telstra will make the budget bottom line get worse because the loss of dividend will be greater than the gain from public debt interest.This one point that is not understood and has not been publicly reported to the best of my knowledge. I have had the figures which we calculated in my office checked by the Parliamentary Library. On the basis of the best assessments we can make, and it is really fairly simple arithmetic, it is a reasonable assumption—and I will come back to why it is reasonable in a moment—that the average increase in Telstra dividends will continue at the rate that it has over the period since its corporatisation.I think most people expect that to be true. The price that people are paying for the shares indicates that investors basically think it is true. Independent market analysts that I have read are in fact predicting a more rapid increase in profit. But let me be conservative and say that the 15.6 per cent should be retained. If that is so, it should be understood that the crossover point is not at some remote point in the future. We are not talking about some distant point that we cannot see and cannot take into account in our current budgeting. The crossover point is in the year 2002-03.We are thus talking about four or five years from now when, as a result of this sale, the budget will move from gaining to losing. The Commonwealth fiscal situation will be a net loser. What does that mean? It means that we gain for four or five years and then lose forever. That is the message that this should give to the Australian people. It may be that the independent market analysts are wrong and that the rate of improvement in Telstra's dividend to the Commonwealth will be much less than it has traditionally been.That should be a surprise to all the enthusiastic privatisers because when they put through the bill to sell one-third of Telstra they said, `This will inject a new private sector approach into Telstra and make it more profitable. It will inject a new element of rigour. The shareholders will demand a better return, so it should improve the return on investment.' Because I never believed it to be true, I have not put any allowance for that into my assessment. If you do, the crossover point gets even earlier, maybe three or four years—but let us discount that.Let us drop the rate back from the average it has been since we have had a corporatised Telstra of 15.6 per cent to, say, 10 per cent, which is a very modest rate of profit improvement for a dominant telecommunications company in a modern Western economy at this stage in the economic development of any country like ours. What difference does that make to the crossover point? It still comes in 2004-2005, six or seven years from now. Six years from the budget we are bringing down now we will be in a situation where, far from gaining from this sale, the budgetary position will be worse.People might want to analyse this and say there is some way in which these assumptions are flawed and that Telstra is going to be much less profitable in future. That is not what the prospectus that the Commonwealth issued for the one-third sale of Telstra says. The prospectus does not say the expectation is it is going to be less profitable in future. The debate about selling one third of it was not predicated on the assumption that injecting private sector capital would make it less profitable. None of the market commentary on the prospects for Telstra suggests that it is likely to lose its capacity to deliver significant improvements in dividends—in fact, there is speculation about special dividends, extra dividends, but I have not taken that into my calculation.Alternatively, there is one other assumption that people might challenge about these figures—I think there is only one other—which is my assumption that we should base the public debt interest saving on the current cost of debt to the Commonwealth, which is just under six per cent, but which I have averaged at six. It is possible to argue that the appropriate figure to use is the average cost of Commonwealth debt at the moment rather than the marginal cost, the cost of new debt. If that is the case, the public debt interest saving is $3.2 billion, not $2.4 billion, and the bottom line gain against this year's dividend of $1.2 billion is $2 billion.If you feed that assumption in and on to the 15.6 per cent increase in return, the crossover point is 2004-2005. So feed in different scenarios, different assumptions—all of which I think are conservative against the published independent market analyses of likely profit—and you still get a situation where the bottom line for the budget inside a decade, possibly inside five years, is loss, not gain.It is true that dividends are riskier returns than interest, but you would expect the risk element to be reflected in the price that people are prepared to pay for the shares and, therefore, in the return the Commonwealth gets. As I say, I have made no allowance for claimed efficiency benefits from the one-third sale, firstly, because I do not believe they will be there and, secondly, because one cannot quantify them and so it would be a heroic assumption. But the government says that they are there. It should claim on the basis of what it said in the prospectus that my figures are conservative.This means in practical contemporary terms that no government which flogs the people's asset can justify making commitments for extra spending or tax cuts on the basis of a presumed bottom line gain to the budget because of the relationship between the PDI saving and the dividend loss. You might be able to make a one-off commitment for year one, declining to almost nothing by years two and three and disappearing by 2002-2003. I do not think that would be very responsible, but you could argue that. But you cannot build in long-term recurrent commitments on either expenditure or tax cuts on the basis of an assumption that there is an enduring bottom line benefit to the budget—there is not. In fact, we need to hear what changes are going to be put in place to fund the likely detrimental effect not far into the future that a sale of Telstra could have for the bottom line of the budget. What we are talking about is a saving of $1.2 billion and shrinking.The other argument that goes to the fiscal benefit of the sale is that it reduces public sector debt if you use the money to pay off debt. It is just as well the government is putting the bill through this year because, if it did it in a year when we had introduced accrual accounting to the budget, which it is proposing to do—I might say quite correctly proposing to do; it is a correct policy—the accrual accounting benefit to the budget bottom line for the Commonwealth of selling Telstra to pay off debt would be zero. You have lost an asset which is equal to the amount of debt which you have paid off. It is the same in any commercial situation. Your loss of asset equals your paying off of debt. The improvement to your financial position is zero.But if you are in a situation where your public debt is extraordinarily high as a country, it may be that you need to do that—as corporations sometimes need to do; to change their gearing—to get your borrowings down. But as the Governor of the Reserve Bank said only last Thursday:The stock of government debt to GDP (which effectively measures the extent of accumulated past deficits) is exceptionally low by international standards.Every international comparison, those given by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech and the reference by the Governor of the Reserve Bank make it clear that the stock of government debt is exceptionally low by international standards. There are many arguments to be had on this matter, but you cannot argue this sale on the basis of the budget bottom line. (Time expired)21:30:002021Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLYGK6LindsayLP10—I am thrilled to speak tonight on the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 . The gobbledegook that we heard from the member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) really brought home to me just how out of touch the opposition is in terms of the technology of today. That is why we are selling Telstra, and we are being up-front and honest about it.He was going on about this accrual accounting and this fiscal mumbo jumbo. Just when in the last 13 years did the member for Canberra take to the people the sale of the Commonwealth Bank, Qantas, Williamstown dockyard, Aerospace Technologies of Australia, Garden Island dockyard, Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, Aussat, major airports, the Moomba-Sydney gas pipeline, our uranium stockpile, the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation and now the entire New South Wales electricity industry? Just when was one of those privatisations by the party that stands up and says, `We don't believe in privatisations,' one of those sales of government owned enterprises which were, as the member for Canberra so aptly said, owned by the taxpayer, taken to the people of Australia?At the last election the one-third sale of Telstra was taken to the people of Australia. This government delivered that: we sold one-third of Telstra. The proceeds from that went to retire debt. They did not go to fund vote buying exercises or recurrent expenditure. They went to pay off debt, unlike previous privatisations.Again the further sale of Telstra is being taken to the people of Australia. We are putting this legislation in place in the expectation that, when we are re-elected, this will go through as a mandate from the people of Australia. The reason why people will vote for the coalition on this issue is that they do not believe Labor would not sell it if they got elected. Just when and how would Labor not sell Telstra? We have heard that several times tonight. They say, `We won't sell Telstra.' Let me tell you that the residents of Lindsay do not believe that. We do not trust Labor. We do not trust them to lift the toll on the M4; we do not trust them to cut the waiting lists at the Nepean Hospital; we do not trust them to raise the Warragamba Dam wall; we do not trust them to aircondition our schools and give them assembly halls. They have not honoured a promise in seven years. Nothing they have done will convince the people of Lindsay that they have any intention of not selling the remainder of Telstra if elected. They just would not believe them, but they do believe in up-front politics.We have clearly set out that we will sell a further two-thirds of Telstra if re-elected and that the proceeds of that sale will go to retire debt, as we have already demonstrated with the one-third sale and the retiring of debt. Why have we taken this decision? Because time is running out for Telstra.In 1992, the former Labor government introduced Vodafone and Optus into the communications market. They made some very anal-retentive moves in the telecommunications market by trying to dictate policy in one of the most vibrant and volatile industries ever seen in this century. The diversity and dynamism of the telecommunications market come from the fact that it is market driven; it is consumer driven. Governments trying to dictate in this area leads to the complete stuff-up that we now have with the closure of the analog system for mobile phones.Let's face it, with that decision and the entrance of Vodafone and Optus into the market, Telstra was no longer a monopoly. New entrants are coming into Australia daily: AT&T, AAPT, Primus, Northgate, World Exchange in my own electorate of Lindsay, Hutchison, Global Mobility, Cable and Wireless, Catapult, Qualcom—in fact there are already numerous other merchants seeking more spectrum for further mobile phone services. Iridium will be offering satellite telephony services for around $4 a minute from a $5,000 handset from September this year. For those of you who can recall when the old mobile phones looked like house bricks and cost about $4,000, we know where that technology will take us over the next five years. We are talking about a satellite phone system for anywhere in the world. You will be able to ring around on a set call with one billing system.Optus is also looking at satellite services for phones, digital voice and fax and data. Their Mobilesat S3000 is set to come on line as well. So we are seeing a great splurge in satellite technology. Come on Telstra! Get with it! Wake up and see where the industry is going! If you want to stay with the telecommunications industry, then get capitalised and invest in what is coming up around the corner. I was talking to some Telstra representatives the other day, and they were not particularly enamoured of the D-amp system in the United States. They certainly had absolutely no interest in ADSL technology, and I really doubt whether they had ever heard of satellite telephony services, let alone the types of communications that are looking at data transfers of eight megabytes per second. That is where the future is. That is why Telstra has to be privatised. That is why Telstra has to have access to private capital so that it can actually start investing very heavily in the technology of the future. This is where it is all going; it is where it is all happening. The opposition are coming up with their obligatory opposition and saying, `Fiscal this and fiscal that and da, da, da and a great public asset.'What on earth is government doing funding and capitalising a GBE to compete with the other enterprises in a private market? Why are we doing that? Telstra is not a monopoly, and we should not be investing huge sums of money in it so it can compete with VSAT technology from Israel's Gilat Satellite Networks Ltd. It is very interesting what they are currently doing with lotto services and with service stations, with the stock exchange in India and with pipeline monitoring. They are now moving into considering long distance learning and multimedia. That is where the future of this communications technology is going. Our laptop computers are turning into TVs. Our TVs are turning into computers.It is all about bandwidth. The technology companies everywhere are looking at upgrading their current infrastructure to bring a higher bandwidth into subscribers' homes, and Telstra has to do that. Their ISDN lines, their optic fibres and the cable roll-out, sure, do not go to rural areas, but, let us face it, that is only 128 kilobytes per second. That is probably giving you average video quality technology. They should really be looking to ASDL technology, which is looking at eight megabytes per second, which can be transmitted using a modem on Telstra's existing copper lines within a range of 10 kilometres of a local exchange, which covers most rural towns. Raising the enormous resources re quired to chase that technology is the challenge.We do not want to be left floundering in the 1990s because government wants to control Telstra, wants to dictate what Telstra can invest in, wants to dictate what competitors it lets into the market, and wants to dictate what the consumer can have access to. We are not about that. This technology, this marketplace, is driven by the consumer, and it must remain so to get the enormous leaps in technology that we have experienced in the last 10 years. It is not all about government controlling Telstra because we have to make a profit; it is all about setting Telstra free to compete in a very dynamic, profitable and visionary marketplace.A standard 28.8 kilobytes per second modem is a pretty average modem today and, attached to an ordinary home computer, would take half an hour to download 20 seconds of fully compressed video clip. It would take probably half an hour again to download 45 seconds of audio, which in future we are looking to be downloaded via telephonic services. It would take half an hour to download five megabytes of software. The asymmetrical digital subscriber line technology, ADSL, which is available in the world today, means that eight megabytes per second can be downloaded, leaving still one megabyte available for ordinary telephone usage. That means the film Titanic, a three-hour video, can be downloaded in three minutes. Video on demand is here to stay.That is what the consumer wants. Telstra needs to invest in the technology to compete in tomorrow's communications world. Telstra must borrow money on the commercial market to upgrade, not keep on looking to government to fund and dictate the new direction of expensive technology that consumers demand. It is a very dynamic marketplace, and we should set Telstra free.Why would government, with a $10 billion debt from the 1995-96 budget, be propping up a GBE to compete in this private market? The VSAT technology is set to bring interactive multimedia to the masses. It bypasses the enormous cost of terrestrial infrastructures to which Telstra is irrevocably tied at the mo ment. There are other dynamic changes in this area, such as interconnectivity between subscribers and number portability. You can truly compete in this market. Other providers of technology satellite services, optic fibre cables and the ADSL technology are all able to compete via different pathways for the same subscriber, and then it is up to the consumers as to which one they find suits them best. The ACCC will always be overseeing this.The opponents of this legislation also oppose the $250 million regional telecommunications infrastructure fund. They oppose that fund. They oppose that investment in new technology. They are opposed to that future in services to regional Australia.Some 60 per cent of kids in year 3 today will have careers in job streams not yet identified. They are going to have jobs that we have not even described yet. Yet the opposition is on about preserving jobs within Telstra. If we let this dynamic marketplace go, the number of jobs created with this technology, including video graphics and a large number of other areas that come with it, will be enormous. We have seen that with the privatisation of a number of United States and UK based telecommunications companies. The jobs that were lost through efficiency gains with the privatisation were more than compensated for by the jobs that new industries created in that market.We are still dictating that Telstra and all communications providers in this area should provide various guarantees to rural and metropolitan subscribers. We are looking at the customer service guarantee, the universal guarantee and also at our 17,000 most remote rural users. We are looking at a rebate of $160 a year because they do not have access to untimed telephone calls. Obviously, because of distance, any call that they make is automatically going to be STD.I would suggest that, in the near future, in the next five to 10 years, we will be looking at calls right across Australia at any time of the day or night via satellite for something like 35c a minute. I do not think you can get a better service to the rural communities of Australia than that. That will happen in a free market. That will happen with the sort of technology that is available today.RH4KERRMr Kerr—Would you like to stake your parliamentary salary on that?GK6Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss JACKIE KELLY—I would. I have absolute faith in the technology of today. It is really something that is dynamic. The opposition does not understand. They do not even grasp where it is going. I bet the member opposite who made that comment would not even know what ADSL technology meant. He probably has never seen the modems that drive it. I have held in my hot little hand a satellite phone that is available through your car kits. I have held in the palm of my hand a telephone I can place into the PMC1A card of my computer and turn it into a voice service as a telephone with aerial attached. The technology that is available is quite dynamic. Telstra is not even looking at this area. It needs to be driven to do so by a very competitive private market. The sale of Telstra is absolutely urgent, because time is running out for it to get with it. It will ultimately bring a better service to Australians, especially those in rural areas. We need to bear in mind that this government has legislated for substantial fines if those tasks are not met, but I do not imagine that those fines would ever be imposed because the consumer dictates this technology. It is absolutely wrong for government to even try to tell this sort of industry where it should be heading into the 21st century. I commend the bill to the House.21:47:002024Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I have heard some absurd things in my time, but for somebody on the government side to say it is absurd for government to be directing policy in respect of telecommunications when only the other day the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts (Senator Alston) set out the most prescriptive set of rules about how the band that will be responsible for television will be allocated just shows to me how stupid the have been contributions so far in this debate. I really do think that so many on the government side have sold short the great contributions that have been made by the public institutions which have made up the backbone of this nation. One of them was the Postmaster-General's Department, which was then later broken into Australia Post and Telstra. Through that mechanism, Australians have been able to access cheap, effective communication, first by the mails and later by phone and the new technologies that have come along. To suggest that this nation-making work, which was built around public sector enterprise, is in some way now to be deserted and that we are to leave behind social obligations and responsibilities to the larger community seems to me to be not only fundamentally flawed but also stupid. The principal critique that I would make of this from a Tasmanian perspective is the same critique that Senator Harradine made. When new technologies come along in a market related environment, those technologies are introduced where the economies of scale dictate—that is, principally in Sydney and Melbourne, and later in some regional centres. But the Sydney and Melbourne markets, where the last speaker in this debate, the honourable member for Lindsay (Miss Jackie Kelly), comes from, are going to do reasonably well out of this. The other 99 per cent of Australia in terms of geographical area is not going to feel so comfortable.A very good example that Senator Harradine himself gave was the example of MessageBank, which operates in all capital cities except those in my state. When new technologies come along, when the government forgoes its capacity to direct Telstra, those of us in regional and remote Australia will find ourselves with less market power than the larger centres and left behind again.But where I want to come into the debate today and make a specific contribution is in relation to what we are being told will be a social dividend. I want to come in on this so-called social dividend because we have seen in the so-called heritage trust what we can expect by way of a social dividend. A proposal that was put forward by the government, which was supposed to be the most significant environmental commitment of capital works programs ever to be undertaken in Australia, has been rorted by this government into a Liberal coalition slush fund. We all know the broad detail of what has happened. The broad detail is that $9 out of every $10 that were allocated in the last round of funding went to coalition held seats. We know that, in some states, the distribution was even more skewed. In Victoria, for example, where $16.5 million was allocated, coalition seats received $16.3 million or 98.6 per cent and seats held by the Australian Labor Party received $0.2 million or 1.4 per cent. We know that the distribution of seats is nowhere in the same order of skew.The first defence the government put forward was to say, `You'd expect a fund that was committed to remedy environmental degradation to be principally directed towards regional and rural Australia.' So be it. But let us look at the objective criteria established by the Australian Electoral Commission. Let us look at their allocation of provincial and rural designators for seats.Let us look at what the AEC designates as provincial seats. The coalition holds 10 such seats and the Australian Labor Party holds eight. The distribution as a result of that is that the coalition gets $5 for every $1 allocated to Labor Party held seats. In rural Australia where the coalition holds some 40 seats and the Australian Labor Party three, again, if you compare rural seats with rural seats, for every $1 the Australian Labor Party member is allocated a coalition party member is allocated $2.It cannot plausibly be the case that right across Australia environmental priorities so neatly match the political priorities of this coalition government, of the Minister for the Environment (Senator Hill) and the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Anderson), in their allocations. How rich and surprising it is when we discover that in fact in the allocative decisions not only was there advice received from regional assessment panels and state assessment panels but also right at the end game when Minister Hill was making his decisions he invited Senator Crane from Western Australia into the room with him to give him advice.Senator Crane comes in and says that he is an expert on Landcare groups. But Senator Crane apparently did not even know that his family was involved in a Landcare group right in his own backyard. Some expert! He did not even know that his particular property intersected with a group that was funded. So there he was in there with the minister, rorting Western Australian grants to go to coalition held seats, as supposedly an expert in Landcare but not even knowing anything about what happens in Landcare in his own backyard.Senator Eggleston was also there. Senator Hill tells the Senate that he cannot remember what Senator Eggleston was doing in the room. Let us leave that to one side. But somehow he invited Senator Eggleston to be there. He invited the member for Dunkley (Mr Billson) from Victoria to come along to a meeting he held in South Australia to advise him on Victorian grants. We have heard rumours that the member for Leichhardt (Mr Entsch), whilst he was not involved in the room, was involved repeatedly with detailed representations to the minister on how the Queensland grants ought to be made.Would this matter? It would not matter if the minister himself was basically rubber stamping recommendations that were coming forward. When we heard the minister in evidence at the Senate estimates committee the other day he said, `Overwhelmingly we followed their recommendations.' Of course those of us who grew up going to primary school and reading our dictionaries and understand what is meant by the English language would have thought that a statement such as `Overwhelmingly I followed those recommendations' would have meant that at least nine out of 10 were followed. Perhaps up to 10 per cent of applications, one or two, might not have been followed, but when you say that you do something `overwhelmingly' as a result of advice people would expect that you did overwhelmingly follow those recommendations.What do we find? We find that the minister in fact misled the Senate. He actually changed the priority order that was recommended to him so that four out of 10 applications that were granted would not have been granted had he followed the advice that was tendered to him—39 per cent of projects that were actually funded would not have got a cracker, would not have got a cent, if Senator Hill had actually followed the priority orders recommended to him by the regional and state assessment panels, the independent groups that were supposedly there to guide him in the selection of those projects.You might ask yourself: why have those independent assessment processes at all, particularly in some of the more exaggerated of the interventions? Take, for example, the wetlands program. In the wetlands program, the minister substituted his views in 78 per cent of the cases that came before him—eight out of 10. Yet he says, `Overwhelmingly I followed their advice.' Look at Victoria. Mr Billson was there as the minister's special adviser, rorting the funds in Victoria. What happened in Victoria? Fifty-four per cent of the projects that were funded would not have been funded but for the minister's intervention. In the Northern Territory I think 67 per cent of the projects would not have been funded. Yet the minister comes before us and says, `Overwhelmingly I followed their advice.' What nonsense! He has misled the Senate.So we have a situation that really begs the question: why did the minister go to the bother of setting up a two-tiered independent and expert arm's length process which must have wasted tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars? Why did he put people to the trouble of all those assessment processes? Why did he send his departmental officers to each of those regional meetings and put people through this farce when, when the projects came to his office, he went through them, shuffled them like a deck of cards and basically said, `I like this one; I don't like that one. I'll fund this one; I won't fund that one'? Look at the projects to see whether this makes a difference. It does. What it really means is that the minister passed over many good projects in Labor areas.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to standing order 81 or perhaps even 85 on tedious repetition. I think the member for Denison is really digressing way past the subject matter that is before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—I would remind the honourable member that he has been spending quite a deal of time on this matter. I understand the thread, but I would ask him to get back to the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 and make his point.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I intend to continue the rest of my speech on this theme because the government has said that one of the benefits that will flow from this bill will be a further $2 billion, which, from experience to date, will be rorted just like the money they have already rorted. This community has a stake in rejecting that kind of politicisation.I am saying that what the minister did with the Natural Heritage Trust is directly material to the kind of abuse that we will see in the future. Take for example what happened with the Manly reservoir project. In New South Wales, this project was listed at 195 out of 202 projects. It was basically scraping the bottom of the barrel. It was seven from the end. It was at the bottom of the priorities. That project deals with regeneration. It has very similar objects and aims to a project submitted by the Bankstown City Council. The Bankstown City Council is located in the seat of Blaxland, which is held by Michael Hatton. This project was ranked at 90.CK6HARDGRAVEMr Hardgrave—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Your immediate predecessor in the chair ruled on the member of Denison in relation to standing orders 81 and 85. The honourable member has continued as before, and in fact, has suggested that he would snub the ruling. I simply claim that he is straying way past the matter before the House.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member for Moreton. As you have observed, I have only just assumed the chair. I am listening very carefully and I know that the member for Denison will speak to the bill.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—I certainly did not reject the ruling of the previous Deputy Speaker. I explained how the material I was introducing to this debate was directly relevant to the debate we are having here—that is, whether it is appropriate and meritorious that we should sell off this great public asset in order to obtain a profit which will go to the kind of distorted public expenditure priorities that this government has previously seen fit to associate itself with.Going back to the Manly against Bankstown proposal, when questioned about this in the Senate estimates earlier this year Senator Hill's response to the funding of Manly was that he had exercised a positive bias in favour of projects located in metropolitan seats. He also commented on the environmental merit of the project and the value for money this represented.Why then did he pass over a project that was located 100 points ahead on the recommendation of the independent merit assessment panel? Why did he overlook a proposal submitted by the Bankstown City Council which is also in a metropolitan area? On environmental merit alone, the proposal was ranked some 105 positions higher by the state assessment panel. The project represents only $34,000 in Commonwealth money and could easily have been funded from the large amounts of funding that the minister approved for projects well below that rank.Other projects overlooked in Labor held areas—and not just in metropolitan areas—in order to fund Liberal projects of a much lower ranking include the Singleton council project which is in the seat held by my friend and colleague Joel Fitzgibbon.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—You mean the member for Hunter.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—Yes, my friend and colleague the member for Hunter. The Singleton vegetation rehabilitation and strategy management plan was ranked 130. It was not right down at the bottom, a tail end Charlie. It was not one of the last projects dragged up by a minister who is obviously desperate to fund something in a Liberal marginal electorate, but rather a project in a metropolitan Labor seat and a regional Labor seat, which were underrepresented in the funding weightings.We now discover that Senator Hill was a one-man selection panel on the Natural Heritage Trust. We have now put into the public arena an analysis which shows that the minister has disregarded the expert opinion of those so-called arms-length processes that he had established. As well as the specific projects that I have mentioned, there are other instances where it is plain that the minister overlooked projects that he could have funded in Labor held electorates, which obviously had higher environmental ranking and were submitted to him by those expert panels, in favour of less meritorious projects, according to the state assessment panels, for what I can only see as political reasons. We get back to the nine out of 10 dollars going to coalition seats. I will turn to some of the other areas that I think members—10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! Before you do, I just say that I am struggling very hard to find the linkage between allocations from the sale of the first tranche of Telstra and the bill before the House. I do trust that you will direct your remarks to the bill that is actually before the House.K26LATHAMMr Latham—It's the social dividend.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—My friend and colleague reminds me of the social dividend. We are going to be told that of the funds from the sale $2 billion will go to a so-called social dividend. Is that not redolent of the greatest environmental package ever—the first social dividend; a social dividend that actually went into the rorted green barrel proposals that the coalition lined up for, the slush fund? We are going to have another $2 billion slush fund. Why would you sell the family silver, our heritage, to fund a Liberal coalition slush fund?I find it particularly interesting to look at some of the objectives that were supposed to be met by this fund. In the Natural Heritage Trust documentation we were told funding would not be provided for projects which replace the individual's or the organisation's responsibility for the sustainable management of soil, land, water or vegetation resources under their control and there would be no subsidies for commercial activities. We were also told that projects which have a production focus without being linked to conservation of the natural heritage base would not be funded. Given this, why is NHT funding being provided for the future profit program of the Queensland Graingrowers Association and the Cattleman's Union? Why is NHT funding also going to the Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association and the United Graziers Association when the ineligibility guidelines also state that funding is not provided for the provision of expert advice where this advice is available through coordinators, facilitators or as a core government business? Given that the NHT is being provided for state wide service delivery in the area of property management planning, why are there industry specific PMP projects being funded from the NHT? (Time expired)22:07:002028Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—The member for Denison (Mr Kerr) just wasted 20 minutes of time in this House talking about everything else other than the bill before us. It was interesting because it was another one of those `if only we had a 14th year' kind of speeches that we have heard a lot over the last couple of years. We have the Labor Party in here tonight, in the form of the member for Denison, complaining about what the Natural Heritage Trust Fund has done and lamenting what it also could be doing, yet he is saying he is not going to support the further sale of Telstra.One would submit that another $2 billion thrown into a Natural Heritage Trust scheme means that some of the matters that he has tried to raise here in connection with the first tranche of the sale of Telstra might in fact be addressed. I have to say that I do not know of one project that was successfully achieved in my electorate. So, as far as green-barrelling the electorates are concerned, it is absolute rubbish to say that. It is most certainly the case that those that were awarded funds out of the Natural Heritage Trust Fund were awarded them on the basis of merit and the competency of their application.I would invite—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker—the member for Denison to encourage those groups in his electorate that perhaps missed out, like some in mine, to apply again based on merit. It is absolutely important that we get to the heart of matter here and that is the completion of the sale of Telstra. I support this bill before this House.RH4KERRMr Kerr—What about the ones that did apply in the Labor areas? What about Blaxland that applied? What was wrong with Mr Hatton's one?10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Denison! You have had your turn.RH4KERRMr Kerr—I am being provoked.10000DEPUTY SPEAKERMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, you are not being provoked. Resume your seat. The honourable member for Moreton has the call. You should not be easily provoked.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—It is very important to note that Telstra is a fine national asset that has etched a solid place in history and it is something that should not be sold on the basis of squandering the proceeds. To hear those opposite suggest that it is a sale of the family silver and that the money will not be used effectively makes me think that they are protesting their innocence a touch too much because after all that really did typify the privatisation processes of the previous Labor governments. Over 13 years they sold off various assets, and what did they do? They used that money for current expenditure, literally bailing themselves out come election time, propping up social welfare schemes—all worthwhile causes, but not when you are clocking up a big national debt.I believe that the government's proposal to put the proceeds from the sale of the remaining two-thirds of Telstra into something like retiring national public debt is in fact a fine result; a very good sacrifice of the asset. It provides a lasting legacy and testament to those who have built up what Telstra now is over so many years, because I think we all agree that Telstra has in the main done a fine job. It has provided services. It has provided advances in technology that in a lot of cases have been world beating and first-class. It really has reached the stage, though, just as the Postmaster-General's Department split during the Whitlam years into Telecom Australia and Australia Post, where who owns the phone company is no longer the issue.That thousands of people joined in and bought into the sale of the first third of Telstra offered for sale is a testimony to Telstra itself and also confidence in this government's agenda. That 92 per cent of Telstra staff bought those shares and that 5.5 million people across Australia own shares of some type is in itself a sign of growing confidence. As a nation we are willing to invest in ourselves, and we do so quite deliberately.Our plan under this particular bill is to take the proceeds of the sale and retire debt. That is one big, lasting legacy that will benefit all Australians. Some opposite, and I have heard some in my electorate, suggest to me that, after all, we used to own 100 per cent of Telstra; it was owned by all Australians. But, after all, few of us ever had a say in the running of the phone company. It is true to say that Telstra has generated a return to government over the years, but let us also look at the fact that there is a debt that the government owes. In fact the $40 billion projected minimum proceeds out of this sale would equal well over $2,000 in debt for every man, woman and child in Australia. You could certainly put the analogy—I am going to—that every man, woman and child in Australia would benefit by the completed sale of Telstra, because this particular burden of public debt will be lifted from them. So too will the current impact on general revenue—outlays which leave the budget every year to service public debt. There is a very good benefit to come from this bill before us tonight.As we know, debt is not a bad thing, unless you borrow and do nothing productive with it. That really did typify the 13 years of Labor between 1983 and 1996 because, after all, every time the Labor Party sold an asset—generally an asset they said they were not going to sell before an election, but did after an election, like Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank, the Federal Airports Corporation properties, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratory—they turned their back on accumulating public debt in this country and spent the proceeds on day to day things; anything to buy votes at an election. They offered no social bonus out of any of the sale of that silver in those years gone by. They offered no up-front commitment. They certainly did say one thing before an election and did not do it afterwards, so there were plenty of broken promises, and that brought everybody in this place into disrepute.There is a growing contrast between what they did and what we are doing and have done to date. We have already done what we promised before the election to do, that is, we sold one-third of Telstra—one-third only—and there will be no further sale until we put it to the people to get the okay. That is what this bill is about here tonight. It is interesting to note that even members of the Labor Party opposite bought shares in Telstra. They voted one way but they did something else with their wallets. We have kept our promise, which is certainly quite a contrast with the 13 years of Labor.I quickly want to deal with some of the concerns of well-meaning people in my electorate of Moreton who have heard the Labor Party's lines about this. It is important to note that universal service obligations—which have been placed in a separate telecommunications act where they belong, because they affect the whole telecommunications industry, not just Telstra—will be upgraded and maintained. It really does not matter who owns the phone company or how many people are involved in the telecommunications regime in this country; everybody works on the same basis. There is a set of rules to be followed to be licensed as a telecommunications carrier. If a carrier does not meet the obligations, they do not have a licence and they are out of business. Ownership of a telephone company is not a substitute for any sort of framework as far as legislation is concerned.There is no doubt about the rights and obligations that have been clearly established by this government as a result of some of the amendments we have brought through in various changes to telecommunications legislation. The government's pursuit of competition and also consumer benefits could, in fact, be hindered by government ownership responsibilities and obligations. We could ask the question: why is that? In a lot of ways, the government could easily be accused of playing favourites toward a government instrumentality and a competitive regime. By removing government ownership from this particular growth area of telecommunications we are unleashing possibilities for Telstra as well as for the industry as a whole.The government is committed to comprehensive community and regulatory safeguards; they are already enacted in legislation. I have spoken on virtually all those telecommunications bills because I welcome the government's attempts to tie down some of these strong community service obligations, particularly for rural and regional Australia and people in my electorate. They include a clear universal service obligation to ensure that standard telephone services and pay phones are reasonably accessible to all people in Australia. It is not a matter of Sydney and Melbourne getting the gravy and the rest of Australia having to please themselves—no way. It is on an equitable basis. That is enshrined in part 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1997.There is also a commitment to continued access to untimed local calls. I will say that again: continued access to untimed local calls. That is required by part 8 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. The consumer service guarantee is imposed by part 9 of that particular act. Special benefits for rural and regional customers of carriage service providers are provided for under section 226 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. The price cap regime is contained in part 6 of the Telstra Corporation Act 1991. In parts XIB and XIC of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and in the Telecommunications Act 1997 there is provision for a flexible regulatory structure designed to stimulate competition in telecommunications and thus deliver cheaper prices and new and improved services to Australian residential and business telecommunications users. That is guaranteed in legislation. These are key community and regulatory safeguards which place legal obligations on service providers and also legally protect the rights of consumers. The bottom line: they are law.To claim that these particular obligations and/or rights could somehow be changed all because Telstra is completely sold is really just a fabrication. But it is quite typical of the Labor Party's `whatever it takes' approach. To scare older Australians in particular with the notion that some of the services they are so used to may be jeopardised as a result of the continued sale of Telstra is, I think, a downright outrage.There is only one way that the obligations on service providers and the rights of consumers can be changed, and that is here in the parliament. This government will certainly not permit that. Moreover, we will enforce these particular obligations. Minister Alston will be introducing an enhanced set of obligations with fines of up to $10 million. Within the obligations there will be easy mechanisms for ordinary Australians to take their particular claims and concerns forward so that they are heard and their concerns can be met. It will not be a case of David versus Goliath; it is a matter of trying to even out that particular scenario as well. This government is committed to the maintenance, enforcement and, where necessary, enhancement of particular obligations and rights—the obligations of carriers and the rights of consumers.The government has included a number of specific measures to ensure those living in rural and remote areas also share in the benefits of improved and cheaper communications. The door is wide open so far as the future is concerned. The fact that Minister Alston will shortly approve Telstra's universal service plan is well known. This will provide for reduced maximum connection times and greater transparency and accountability all round.I think it is important to realise that, because these community service obligations have been changed over the course of this government, deaf and blind Australians and other disabled people who need special services have also been guaranteed access and continuation, no matter which carrier it is, to those particular services. It does not matter whether the carrier is Telstra, Optus, Vodafone, AAPT or One-Tel; they all operate under the same laws that are set down by the federal parliament.I turn to the matter of Australian ownership, which is another issue that has been raised with me by people in Moreton. Telstra obviously has a vital and strategic role in our national economy. No matter who owns it, Telstra will be the biggest private company in Australia as a result of this particular privatisation. Our long-term national interests are therefore very much linked to the importance of telecommunications and, in particular, to Telstra. Telstra should not simply be sold off to the highest bidder. It is important that it remains Australian owned and Australian controlled. Accordingly, the bill before us, the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 , amends the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 to continue a pre-existing policy which restricts aggregated foreign ownership to a 35 per cent stake in Telstra and also restricts individual foreign ownership to just five per cent. These matters are set in concrete; they are before us in this legislation.This legislation should be compared with the model that the government had to repair through legislation that has been presented in this particular parliament, that is, the Beazley model of 1991. We were left a legacy of duplication of telephone cables—including a $4 billion to $5 billion waste of money because a separate telecommunications cabling network was sent out to reproduce infrastructure that was already established—and mobile phone towers scattered all over the countryside in various places. That is the legacy left to us as a result of the time spent by the current Leader of the Opposition (Mr Beazley) as communications minister.As secretary of the government's communications and arts policy committee I can certainly vouch for the fact that the 1996 Telecommunications Act repaired a lot of those failures of the Beazley model. We now have, by law, co-location of facilities. We now have greater cooperation between the various telecommunications carriers in this country to try to minimise the visual blight and to try to ensure that we are not wasting money as a nation.It is vital therefore that this good work does not stop and that the bill before us tonight is passed by this House and also by the other place. It is important that we do not allow those opposite to amend or alter the thread of the bill because, after all, their previous efforts had no balance, they had no eye on the future. Every person in my electorate who has an extra cable strung across their front lawn can blame the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, for that. He is the man who presided over that infrastructure roll-out. This government will not allow a repeat of that sort of mess in a very vital sector—the telecommunications sector.To sum up, we have before us a bill which puts rules in place. We have before us a bill which does something about our national debt—something that Labor never did for 13 years, other than to grow it bigger. We have before us tonight a bill which has the future of a vital sector in mind and the future of this nation in mind. For those reasons, I commend it to the House.22:24:002032O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—I signal that, as we move into the election this year, I am predicting that in rural and regional Australia there will be three hot topics on the campaign trail. The first of them will be the loss of jobs from the withdrawal of services, particularly in the public sector in these areas. The second will be the GST. Without question, an overwhelming third issue will be the proposed sale of Telstra by this government.I tell you why it will be such an enormous issue in rural and regional areas. These people understand that they gain a very direct and substantial benefit which flows from public ownership of the nation's telecommunications carrier. There are four key reasons that they gain a direct benefit.First of all, they know and understand industry policy. They know and understand that we have in Australia—and in a number of our regional centres—businesses that are suppliers to the telecommunications network, businesses that would not even have established in some of these country towns, with people who would not be employed in some of these areas, had it not been for the fact that the government owned and directed Telecom in those days—Telstra now—to take account of the need to invest in this industry strategy in rural and regional areas.The second thing they understand very well is that it has been widely announced that part of the planned strategy to make Telstra more profitable to attract a higher sale price is to shed it of a further 20,000 jobs as quickly as possible. Many of those 20,000 jobs are in rural and regional areas, and those people understand that that is where the job losses will be.The third thing that rural and regional people understand well is that there is no financial sense in this. Telstra is not only the biggest company; it is also the nation's biggest dividend and tax payer. No matter whether you sell it and no matter what you use the revenues to do, somewhere down the trail—and not very far down the trail, as Mr Beazley pointed out today—you reach the crossover point where the money that you would be earning in a continuing income to the government from dividends from Telstra in fact overtakes the funds that you have forgone by selling off the organisation and taking the capital up-front. Of course, when you reach that point, from that day on and forever the taxpayer funds the difference. Country people will understand that well.The biggest and the most substantial issue that people living in rural and regional Australia know and understand well and will face during the next few months of debate about this is the community service obligation or what we describe as the CSO. For anyone who does not understand what the CSO is, I outline what it is. Put simply, Telstra invest and have always invested—and as they are now required to invest—in expensive new fibre optics and digital equipment. That is fine in city areas where there are lots of homes and businesses to pay for the services, short distances to cover, and lots of customers. They can charge for those services and they make a high profit from those services. But when it comes to investing in those new technologies in rural and regional areas where the amount of equipment required is over a much larger area and there is a smaller number of customers that you actually hook onto it you do not make the same profits; in fact, you make a loss.When the government owned Telstra—or Telecom as it was then—the government directed it to do these things. It directed it to use the profits made in city areas to cover the losses made in country areas. You, Mr Speaker, have been around this place a long time. You will remember these debates and you will remember the former telecommunications minister, Minister Duffy, laying the papers on the table in 1986 demonstrating that that rural cross-subsidy then was $500 million a year. When you sell Telstra and it is owned by private shareholders you are expecting those private shareholders to say to the board of directors, `Yes, we are happy to forgo $500 million a year of profit. You don't have to pay it to us. We are happy for you to hand it over to the rural cross-subsidy.' Pigs might fly! Private shareholders do not have an interest in country cross-subsidies. This needs to be very well understood, and I guarantee that before this debate is over it will be well understood.I know that my time is about to expire. I intend to continue developing these points when debate on this Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 1998 is resumed in the House.Debate interrupted.Adjournment203310000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.203322:30:002033Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—In recent times, questions of computer processing and electronics communications are very much on people's minds. We are seeing the spread of the Internet, the World Wide Web and global communications. We are also seeing a lot of talk—although not necessarily in a lot of depth—about a matter called intellectual property. Tonight I want to pull together some references I have made to intellectual property in speeches over the last couple of years, because I am becoming increasingly concerned at Australia's failure to understand the implications of where it is going.By intellectual property we mean such things as patents—the rights owned by individuals in matters they create—and creative productions, whether it be in music or in performance. We are seeing a lot of activity in the performing arts area and some disquietude with the government's attitude. We have also been very aware of the development of piracy, particularly in CDs and computer software. We are probably one of the world's best examples of a law-abiding country that respects intellectual property rights. We have helped the Western world to put in place legislation, procedures and processes to ensure that people who own intellectual property have those rights protected—and rightly so.However, along with many other countries, we have not been ensuring that our users of intellectual property have fair and equal access to it. It would be possible, for example, for the manufacturers of Windows to decide tomorrow that a particular company in Australia was not able to buy the next version and could not use it in their product. In fact, this actually occurred back in 1995. Windows was released publicly in Australia in August of that year and could be bought at Harvey Norman for domestic use, but the commercial customers who use it in their products could not obtain it until November whereas people in America had access to the earlier Beta versions six months before. This meant that people in Australia who were competing in the marketplace using Windows as a raw material in their product had a six-month delay before they could actually absorb it and make sure it worked with their own software.I expect we will see in the years ahead countries competing to attract intellectual property—a bit like Britain's shipping fleet. Earlier this century Britain had the world's biggest commercial fleet, but all the ships went to Liberia where taxes were lower. That is likely to happen with intellectual property in that governments will start to compete in offering incentives and inducements to locate property rights in their country and, hence, attract the royalty stream that goes with it.We are building a system with the potential to turn back and suffocate us because, as observers of intellectual property rights, we are not insisting that our companies and our people have fair and equal access. By that I mean simply that anybody who wishes to utilise intellectual property can do so in Australia on the same basis as anywhere else in the world. In other words, we do not want to see Americans—or Germans, the French or other Australians—paying half price for a product. Fair trade means protecting property. It also means fair access. We are not adding to the fairness the responsibility of owners to ensure that they do not discriminate commercially against individuals or countries.The second aspect which is important to understand is that we as a country have spent a lot of money investing in R&D—in developing technology and in developing research. We have not done enough about making sure it stays in the country. In recent months Memtech was bought by an American company. Memtech technology, which was developed largely with Australian investment, is now in America. Sarich's technology is now in America. Computer Science of Australia, in which the Department of Defence invested many tens of millions in computer software, is now owned by an American company.It is important, firstly, that we start to understand about fair access and, secondly, that we find ways to encourage companies which develop intellectual property to stay in Australia. In the years ahead, people will look very carefully at how we handle this question, because it is one of the very great challenges not just for us but for the whole Western world. We face the danger that future buccaneers will ride a wave of laws we establish, with intellectual property as the booty. (Time expired)203422:35:002034Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Last week I had the pleasure of announcing, with the Minister for Transport and Regional Development (Mr Vaile), the winning tender for the sale of Townsville Airport. The Australian Airports consortium, headed by the former Federal Airports Corporation chief, Jack Moffat, secured the tender with a win ning bid of $15.9 million. It was a popular win and one which has been welcomed by Townsville. It has been welcomed because the winning bid represents a significant vote of confidence in the future of our city and of our region.However, it is fair to say that not everybody shared that confidence. The Townsville Bulletin reported on 30 October last year:Townsville airport, one of 15 up for grabs in the second round of sales, catered for 660,000 passengers in 1995-96 and made $1.6 million profit.But an infrastructure company, Infratil Australia, said recently that the RAAF presence and proximity to Cairns made Townsville an unattractive option.Mr Speaker, the former member for Herbert, whom you will know well, Ted Lindsay, who is standing again at the next election, also jumped on the bandwagon of knockers and nay-sayers. The article continued:Local Labor Party boss Ted Lindsay said the RAAF presence at the airport made it impractical to privatise.Boy, was he wrong! He was not just wrong, he was $15.9 million wrong.Clearly, Australian Airports chairman Jack Moffatt thinks he is wrong, being quoted in the Townsville Bulletin as saying he believed Townsville airport, given the region's diversified economy, had the most potential of any airport offered in the second round of sales. As a former Managing Director of the FAC, Mr Moffatt could have bid for any of the 15 airports, but he chose Townsville—and he chose Townsville because of its potential. He said:Our vision is to develop, over time, an airport which is worthy of Townsville's status in the region as the capital city of northern Australia and one which is appropriate to the character of this city.Clearly what we have in the sale outcome of Townsville airport is a magnificent vote of confidence in Townsville. It is a vote of confidence in our current economic position, particularly where unemployment continues to fall month after month, and a vote of confidence in our future economic and development potential. Sadly, the only person who does not share this confidence is Labor's candidate for the seat of Herbert at the next federal election, Ted Lindsay.From the very day Ted Lindsay lost office, he has been talking down Townsville and talking down the massive leaps in regional development and economic diversification we have made over the last two years. He continues to cling to the outdated belief that without government Townsville has no future. This was never more clearly demonstrated than in his patronising statement of last October in relation to Townsville airport and tourism when he said in the Townsville Bulletin:The government is the only party with the capacity to ensure international services are attracted to Townsville.Gosh, wasn't that wrong. We might also draw a parallel to the current Telstra debate that is happening in this House at the moment. His comments stand in stark contrast to the statement of Jack Moffatt last week that:I think in the long term tourism is going to fire in Townsville. What we have got to do is work with all those interested in seeing that happen to make it work.There is no doubt that the public sector has been a major part of Townsville's development and will always be an important part of our city, particularly that of the Australian Defence Force. But if Townsville and Thuringowa are to continue to develop and grow, we must move away from our reliance on government for our existence and encourage further diversification in our local and regional economy.The sale of the Townsville airport is a classic example of just this. Ted Lindsay and Labor would have us believe that no-one does it better than government, that Townsville is not capable of standing and walking on its own two feet without a paternalistic federal government barking orders at us every step of the way.The role of government is not to dictate the future of the twin cities; the role of governments, both current and future, is to work hand in hand with the twin cities community, listen to what we want our future development and direction to be, and help those goals to be realised.203522:40:002035Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I would like to speak about the efforts being made in my electorate of Greenway and in New South Wales in general to reduce the number of pedestrian fatalities, particularly among school children. Total pedestrian fatalities during 1996 Australia wide in the naught to 16 age group was 190; 59 were from New South Wales. In 1997 the national figure was 162; 50 were from New South Wales. These figures are far too high.A national organisation called HOPE—Helping Our Pedestrians Everywhere—is operating out of a council community centre in my electorate. HOPE was established in 1991 when a local student died after being knocked down by a car when alighting from a school bus in Kildare Road, Blacktown. HOPE now has branches in Springwood, Tweed Heads, Queenscliff and the Gold Coast. One of the early programs of HOPE was to promote the use of distinctly coloured school buses. With the support of St Lukes Grammar School, Dee Why, Lindisfarne Anglican College, the Lakeside Christian College at Tweed Heads which supplied their busses, Wattyl Paints, Heckla Lights, 3M Australia and Newfema Pty Ltd which provided the materials, there are now three yellow safety buses being used to transport children to school each day.Mrs Val Moorhouse, HOPE President, has announced a national campaign to eliminate black spots where school children could be killed getting off school buses. Mrs Moorhouse said the campaign would identify and study possible causes of black spots. The information collected would be studied and then submitted to the relevant state authorities for action. Information sought would include the name of the deceased children, the exact location, time and day of the accident and types of vehicles involved. This would allow HOPE to set up a national register which would provide information to governments to eliminate accidents involving school children.I would also like to mention the work carried out by Mr Brian Evans, who suffered a personal tragedy when his son was killed after alighting from a school bus. Mr Evans publishes an information bulletin which is designed to raise issues concerning road safety for school children. The February 1998 bulletin draws attention to delays in implementing a number of stay safe committee recommendations in a school child pedestrian safety around buses report, published in November 1994. Some of these recommendations still to be implemented are: vehicles permitted to pass school buses in either direction at 40 kilometres per hour, buses able to run ahead of schedule without statutory controls and inadequate enforcement of road rules around schools and along school travel routes.Mr Evans also refers to a program being conducted by the New South Wales government entitled `Safer routes to school programs'. The program involves the systematic investigation of the travel patterns of primary school students and the development of educational and behavioural initiatives to improve student safety. In particular, the program focuses on the issue of adult supervision on the journey to and from school for school children under the age of 10 years and initiatives to address this issue.Involvement in this program is voluntary. Each school may register to be involved and then must set up a school safety committee made up of the RTA, local council, school community and possibly local police, bus companies and community road safety groups. So far I am pleased to say that 60 per cent of schools have committed to the program with most of the remainder expected to be signed up by mid-first term this year. I congratulate Mr Evans and Mrs Moorhouse and her HOPE committee on the valuable work being carried out to protect the lives of young Australian school children.203622:44:002036Grace, Elizabeth, MPMrs ELIZABETH GRACEML6LilleyLP10—Mr Speaker, I would like to pose a question without notice: how long does it take to serve and deliver one million meals? The answer is just under 25 years. In my electorate of Lilley, Crosby Park Meals on Wheels recently served its one-millionth meal to 92-year-old Mr Joe Davis of Clayfield. This is a remarkable achievement and tonight I would like to pay tribute to all the staff and volunteers of Crosby Park Meals on Wheels who have graciously given of their time in both meal preparation and delivery over the last 25 years.It was a special day, and to celebrate it His Excellency the Governor of Queensland, Mr Peter Arnison, and his wife, Barbara Arnison, who is the patron of Meals on Wheels, proudly delivered a meal to Mr Davis. This was no ordinary delivery for Mr Davis. Not only did he have the Governor of Queensland in his living room but it was soon engulfed by numerous television cameras and microphone-wielding journalists. Mr Davis took it all in his stride and gave a heartfelt thanks to Meals on Wheels for its commitment, hard work and generosity of spirit to those in need.To celebrate the day, Crosby Park Meals on Wheels delivered meals free of charge, which was a very kind gesture considering their tight budget. I take this opportunity to congratulate Peter O'Brien, the Service Manager, and Lorna Anderson, the President of Crosby Park Meals on Wheels, for organising such a wonderful celebration to commemorate the delivery of their one-millionth meal. It was also a pleasure to have there the Queensland President of Meals on Wheels, Mary Lowe, and the Queensland Administrator, Mr Greg Payne, to help with the celebrations.I know I speak for the state member for Clayfield, the Hon. Santo Santoro, and the Councillor for the Ward of Hamilton, Mr Graham Clay, when I say that it was a very humbling experience to meet and talk with the 50 or so committed volunteers of Crosby Park who day in and day out give up their time to help those in need.Across the country, Meals on Wheels organisations are always on the look out for volunteers, and I urge all members of this House to give their services to their local Meals on Wheels branch. I do, and I can recommend it. For two hours each month I deliver 25 meals to needy residents in the suburbs of Chermside and Wavell Heights. What really gives me a feeling of satisfaction is that the majority of Meals on Wheels clients sit on their verandah or by their window waiting for me or another volunteer to arrive. For many of these people, it is the highlight of their day because it may be the only contact they have with another person. It gives me a tremendous feeling of satisfaction at the end of my run. I recommend this feeling to everybody.At Crosby Park Meals on Wheels, the food is cooked fresh on the premises and about 130 to 140 meals are delivered seven days a week, including on public holidays. Like other Meals on Wheels organisations, Crosby Park has no means test and delivers to all people in need. These range from a young multiple sclerosis sufferer to a 98-year-old lady. It is the aspiration of Crosby Park Meals on Wheels to lift the national profile of Meals on Wheels with the creation of a national awareness week, which will include a national Meals on Wheels day where every customer across Australia receives the same delicious meal.A national awareness week would give the organisation the perfect opportunity to encourage more Australians to donate their time in helping to bring a little happiness and comfort to others. I wish them all success, and I will do everything in my power to ensure that they succeed.203722:48:002037Lawrence, Carmen, MPDr LAWRENCEXS4FremantleALP00—Just over a couple of weeks ago, I was very surprised to receive a fax which said:SWANDOCK is a Ship Repair and Maintenance Company that leases land from the Fremantle Port Authority.One of the leases expires on 31st October 1998 and we had been given verbal assurance from the Authority that at that date it would be brought into line with two (2) other areas leased from the Authority.The Fremantle Port Authority in their wisdom (and more than likely under instructions from the WA Premier)—and that turned out to be true—have yesterday informed us that the lease will not be renewed. They will give no reason.Thus in effect will put this Company out of business resulting in the unemployment of 20 permanent staff and approximately 50 casual staff, all to fulfil a DREAM that our premier has, we suspect, to build a Maritime facility to RIVAL what Sydney has. Could you please make enquiries on our behalf to find out what is going on, so I can inform my staff, some of whom have been employed by this company for over 15 years, if they have a job or not.That fax was from Mr Rod Munro, and his suspicions were well founded. The firm Swandock has been part of Fremantle for over 50 years, since the Second World War. Swandock and the Fremantle Shipwrighting Co. employ 20 to 30 people most of the time and a significant number of casuals when the work is there.Rod Munro and Tony Camarda were born and bred in Fremantle. They run that company. It is a family company. For the past decade or more they have run Swandock in particular. By the end of this month, they both expect to be bankrupt, unless something I have heard today changes the situation dramatically. They have probably lost their homes unless they are able to renegotiate that lease. Rod Munro is 59 and Tony Camarda is 68 so, as the local newspaper put it, they are hardly prime candidates for re-employment.The problem is that the Fremantle Port Authority wanted them to continue. This is an active working dock. There is only one other like it in Western Australia and we certainly did not want a monopoly. It was very unexpected that the Fremantle Port Authority pulled the plug. It was very clear—and I have since had discussions that confirm this—that it was because of the Premier's grand vision to bring back Australia II to the Fremantle Victoria Quay. Everyone wants to see it back in Western Australia, but not at the expense of a working port—and they can exist side by side.This company has done a great deal, not just for the work force in Fremantle but also for Fremantle's maritime heritage. They can exist side by side, as they have shown themselves. I obtained from them a list of some of the things that they have done in the local community. They have helped to restore and preserve historical skiffs. They carried out a free docking of the Endeavour prior to its national tour, with a value of approximately $10,000 given free to the community. They donated the timber which helped to launch the Endeavour Foundation. They donated appren ticed labour to the Endeavour Foundation during the building of the replica. They are very conscious of our maritime history, but they do not want to be set aside in the process of putting Bond's yacht on the quay. They do not want to be a museum piece; they want real jobs now.They have also provided timber for the Duyfken. They have provided work experience for schools. They have trained 60 apprentices, and yet it would appear that the Premier's decision—and he heads the task force—leaning on the Fremantle Port Authority may prevent them from continuing. They were in difficult times. They were in receivership, but they had a buyer. The moment they were told that their lease would not be renewed, the buyer disappeared.I am very pleased to say that, as a result of a lot of pressure that has been put on some of those people, and I hope finally on the Premier, it would appear that as of today the Fremantle Port Authority may renegotiate the lease, but it might be too late. That business may well have gone under and with it some very solid jobs. These are skilled workmen—highly skilled workers—in their late 40s and 50s, and many of them will never get another job.If these jobs are lost from Fremantle, I will continue to protest violently at the short-sightedness of the Premier. If he has the courage to reverse the decision—and I hope he has—then Fremantle will remain an active port with a docking facility to rival any in the country. Failure to do that will turn Fremantle into a manicured museum, and none of us wants to see that.203822:52:002038Evans, Richard, MPMr RICHARD EVANS3V5CowanLP10—I want to remind the House about some facts regarding our disability services. Some three million Australians, almost 18 per cent of the population, suffer with some form of disability. Many of these, some five per cent of that group, have severe intellectual disabilities. There are some 8,000 parents over the age of 65 with children with severe disabilities. This all means that there is an unmet need in the community for families with disabilities, in particular intellectual disabilities, which includes, I guess, the acquired brain injury group as well.Parents of these fellow Australians are not really asking for help for themselves; they are really asking for help for their children and also to accommodate their children's needs. There is a program in Australia called A Time To Care. This Time To Care program has been running for some time over the last 12 months or so to try to raise awareness with state politicians in particular but also federal politicians. It is trying to get a re-emphasis of priority of funding.Recently, about two weeks ago, they had a program start called Adopt a Politician. I am told that throughout Australia each federal member will be approached by a family with a disabled child to adopt that politician, to let them know the lifestyle of that family and that child, and to raise awareness with the politician. I fully concur that that is a great idea and a very powerful way of increasing the awareness with politicians. The Time To Care program's newsletter says, `We say that people with disabilities and their families are entitled to a decent quality of life with the same opportunity to participate in the life of their community as other people have.' I think everyone in this place would say hear, hear to that.Today in Western Australia, for instance, there were protesters outside the offices of each federal member of parliament. Unfortunately, they were not to realise that federal members were in Canberra. I was sorry not to meet those protesters who visited my office. Nicole Mourad, a 21-year-old with Down syndrome, who has problems with literacy and numeracy and also employment opportunities, has recently adopted Daryl Williams, the Attorney-General, as part of the Adopt a Politician program. She with a number of others attended my office and presented my office with some information kits and videos. Primarily, they were trying to raise awareness with federal politicians.I think there are certain responsibilities in relation to federal politics and that is in regards to funding. There are a number of people in our community who require funding for different things. My view is that there are certain aspects of our community that should not necessarily queue for funding. I say to you without any hesitation at all that disability services, in particular intellectual disability services, is one group that should get their cheque first every time. I think that we as a country need to address how we go about funding disability services not only at a federal level but also at a state level.I call upon the Time To Care program and the campaign that they have got going to make all federal politicians aware, to get those families to come and adopt federal politicians to make those who are not aware of disability services become more aware of disability services. Perhaps we will have a change of attitude over a period of time towards disability services. It is one area that I think requires urgent action. I know the federal government recently did increase funding, but in my view it is not enough to meet unmet need.I support the Time To Care program. I hope that all federal politicians when they are approached by this campaign do open their arms, their eyes, their minds and their hearts to embrace these people and perhaps we can have a change of attitude not only at the federal level but also at the state level.203922:57:002039Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—When Blaxland, Lawson and Wentworth crossed the Blue Mountains in 1813 they could not in their wildest dreams have imagined what lay ahead. When Cox and his partners in subsequent years started to build the road across the mountains, they could have had no idea whatsoever of the thoroughfare that the Great Western Highway would become. Yet, in spite of the steady improvements that have occurred since then, the Great Western Highway is still inadequate to meet the growing demands on it. It is still in urgent need of attention and it still needs much greater government funding than it has been receiving.A drive along the highway late at night will show a constant convoy of trucks up and down the highway. A drive down the moun tains on Sunday afternoon will show, to the agony of day trippers, an enormous traffic jam. A drive in the lower part of the mountains in peak hour in the morning will show enormous frustration by commuters trying to get out of the mountains down to the suburbs and to the city. It is very obvious that the route across the Blue Mountains, the Great Western Highway, needs considerable and urgent attention.The Great Western Highway is a vital link with the hinterland of western and central New South Wales. For the agricultural produce and the growing manufacturing centres it is the only link to the growing markets and the ports of Sydney. If we are to seriously encourage regional development in central and western New South Wales, the Great Western Highway desperately needs to be enhanced and improved. If we are to take seriously the steady growth in tourism that we have seen—and it is pretty obvious when you look at the beauty of the Blue Mountains why there is such a steady flow of tourists to the Blue Mountains and west of there—and if we are really to facilitate that growth in tourism, then the Great Western Highway desperately needs to be upgraded.If we are to consider as well enhancing the facilities for emergency vehicles wanting to access remote areas of the Blue Mountains in times of emergency such as bushfires, then we also need to upgrade the Great Western Highway. The accident figures show very clearly the plight of the Great Western Highway. For instance, if you compare the 208 kilometres between Sydney and Bathurst on a per kilometre basis, as the NRMA and the RTA did in 1994, with the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Tweed Heads, these figures stand out: 2.5 accidents per kilometre on the Pacific Highway and seven accidents per kilometre in one year on the Great Western Highway; 1.5 injuries or deaths per kilometre on the Pacific Highway and 3.6 injuries or deaths on the Great Western Highway; three per cent of accidents in New South Wales generally cause casualties and nine per cent of accidents on the Great Western Highway cause casualties; and one per cent of accidents cause death in the state generally and three per cent of accidents cause death on the Great Western Highway.The Great Western Highway desperately needs federal government funding. Funding from the federal government to states for roads has been increased, but it is still not sufficient. The federal government funding through the roads of national importance program has the potential to significantly improve the Great Western Highway.10000SPEAKERMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:002040House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices2040The following notices were given:Mr Campbell to move:That the Carrier Licence Conditions (Optus Mobile Pty Ltd) Declaration 1997 (Amendment No. 1 of 1997), made under subsection 63(5) of the Telecommunications Act 1997, be disallowed.Mr Moore to present a bill for an act to repeal the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Act 1978, and for other purposes.Mr Miles to present a bill for an act to make provision in relation to payment and settlement systems and netting contracts, and for related purposes.Mr Andrew to move:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration:Workplace Relations Amendment (Superannuation) 1997; andStudent and Youth Assistance Amendment Bill 1998.Documents2040The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 31 March 1998:Australian Bureau of Statistics Act—Australian Bureau of Statistics—Proposal 1998 No. 4.Broadcasting Services Act—Notices—Broadcasting Services (Events) No. 1 of 1994—Amendments 1998 Nos. 1, 2, 3.Corporations Act—Accounting standard No. AASB 1019.Defence Act—Determinations under section 58B 1998 Nos. 11, 12, 13.National Health Act—Declaration 1998 No. PB 5.Pasture Seed Levy Act—Declaration 1998 No. 1.Answers to Questions in Writing2041The following answers to questions were circulated:2041(Question No. 2528)25282041McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 November 1997:(1) Has the Minister's Department engaged consultants since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) which consultants have been engaged, (b) what was the nature of the work undertaken in each case and (c) what sum was paid in each case.(2) What is the estimated cost of consultancy work being undertaken for the Minister's Department for which no payment has been made.2041Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPForeign Affairs10—As indicated above, the honourable member has asked identical questions of both ministers. The following answer has been provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on behalf of both ministers:(1) Information on consultants engaged during the financial years 1995-96 and 1996-97 has been provided to you separately. The following information, therefore, covers the period from 1 July 1997 only.Consultants (over AUD2,000)—1 July to 30 November 1997OfficeName of ConsultantDescription of ProjectFull Cost of ConsultancyAmount Paid up to 30.11.97Amount yet to be paidAthensInfosenseHardware & technical support other than NNS230202302DhakaHoda Vasi Chowdhury—accountantsPreparation of Section 50 Statement317831780HarareJohn LeonardLocally engaged staff management training800080000Hong KongLoree Graham Photo LtdProvision of photographic services for "Face to Face" project coordinated by Consulate Public Affairs area19748.219748.20Hong KongHarris AsiaProvision of design and production of book of photographs for "Face to Face" project10761.59010761.59LondonCentre Facilities ConsultancyUpdate AHC's contract cleaning specification & schedule17021562511396LondonThe HB Sign Company LtdAdvise and design of the AHC's signs851108511LondonSelven LtdModifying payroll to facilitate new SUN codes14894014894 LondonGrimley International Property AdvisersRates revaluation45455454550LondonHays MontroseRecruitment of new Facilities Manager808508085LondonConsultelAssist with transfer from Siemens PABX to Mitel10000100000Mexico CityDr Manuel GollasProduction of Country Economic Brief3205.121602.561602.56MoscowDominic StevensComputer training641064100RomeAdele GhighiComputer training course—Word 6342003420RomeAdele GhighiComputer training course—Excel 5342003420Tel AvivReshit Machshava Ltd.Further development of LES salary program450028121688EXBBrave DesignLayout, design, printing White Paper37345373450MDDCentre for Electronic CommerceIndustry case studies on electronic commerce950002850066500MDDUniversity of AdelaideGains from trade and investment liberalisation900005000040000ISDPaul Dibb & AssociatesProvide advice on regional security issues and to undertake training of middle-level and some senior officers in international security policy (max of $33,000 per annum)33000687526125NADDavid CarterAustralian studies in China : Report (May 1997)300030000NAD/EAAUM. Austria 1Evolution of trade regime11971.559755996.5NAD/EAAUM. Austria 2Foreign investment regime897944894490NAD/EAAUH. CabaluEA growth model and analysis850042504250NAD/EAAUP. IntalEA growth model600030003000NAD/EAAUB. MillanePhilippine mining industry720036003600NAD/EAAUJ. BryantPhilippine investment trends500005000NAD/EAAUR. ClaretePhilippines agricultural sector700007000NAD/EAAUTasman Inst. 3.Philippine infrastructure policies1750087508750NAD/EAAUTasman Inst. 1.Best practice in legal, tarriff, risk management policies in Asia1500075007500NAD/EAAUTasman Inst. 2.Best practice in Asia in sector specific regulatory policies1500075007500PSD/ITBSMS Consulting Group P/LFacilitate the implementation of the new Information Management Strategic Plan within the Information Technology Branch800006798012020PSD/ITBSMS Consulting Group P/LVideo Conferencing Feasibility Study45900045900PSD/ITBBHP Information Technology Pty LtdUndertake a number of year 2000 management and co-ordination tasks504601679133669 PSD/ITBSMS Consulting Group P/LExtension to existing contract entered into 96/9753900053900PSD/SPBChris ColtonReview of communications operations48400048400PSD/SPBDatum System Integration P/LTechnical support for the TRIM records management system273001024017060PSD/SPBProject Coordination (Australia) Pty LtdProject management of all fitout alterations on behalf of the Department. (Full cost 5% of the construction cost including preliminaries)10075100750PSD/DSBSlaidburn Pty LtdProvision of expert skills—security training 672028803840PSD/PTBDeloitte & Touche ConsultingReview of Passports—Phase 3770780538000232780PMDRichard GateAdminister the day to day operations of the South Pacific Media Monitoring Program16449164490TNDCentre for International EconomicsAnalysis of benefits of free-trade area AFTA and CER, with results released at "The AFTA-CER Linkage:The Way Forward" Conference in Singapore, 5-6 Sept 1997—Total Cost $55,000 (DFAT paying $30,500—$20,000 SED & $10,500 from MDD—TND to co-ordinate)30500305000CMD/SDBPeople and StrategyCoping with change training sessions337533750CMD/SDBANUClient intraction course338433840CMD/SDBA.R. Liiband and Associated Pty LtdCoping with change training sessions435343530CMD/SDBA.R. Liiband and Associates Pty LtdCoping with change training sessions257525750CMD/SDBAnutechTeaching English as a second language training550755070CMD/SDBCanberra Economic Consultants Pty LtdEconomics for non-Economists course500050000CMD/SDBImproved Communication SkillsAdvanced writing skills course295029500 CMD/SDBImproved Communication SkillsAdvanced reading skills course295029500CMD/SDBSlaidburn Pty LtdAnalytical report writing course210021000CMD/SDBSuper Media Pty LtdMedia skills course10000100000CMD/SDBMaura Fay Workshops Pty LtdPresentation and public speaking skills course562256220CMD/SDBPALM Management Pty LtdManagement workshop270027000CMD/SDBPALM Management Pty LtdManagement workshop260026000CMD/SDBPALM Management Pty LtdSES management/leadership workshop19700197000CMD/SDBRob Brennan Facilitation Services Pty LtdIntroduction to middle management workshop250025000CMD/SDBChallenge Consulting Pty LtdMiddle management workshop337533750CMD/SDBA.R. Liiband and Associates Pty LtdMiddle management workshop976797670CMD/SDBPeople and StrategyOverseas management workshop300030000CMD/SDBA.R. Liiband and Associates Pty LtdStrategic management workshop685068500CMD/SDBOMNIOngoing support200020000CMD/SDBCameron and AssociatesGAA training365036500CMD/SDBMaura Fay Workshops Pty LtdGAA presentation skills course596259620CMD/SDBSilver Wattleteam skills900090000CMD/SDBPeople and StrategyGAA training285028500CMD/SDBPeople and StrategyGAA training285028500CMD/SDBMaura Fay Workshops Pty LtdGAA presentation skills course495049500CMD/SFBCP Resourcing Pty LtdOutplacement services program for Mr J. Humphreys10000100000CMD/SFBCP Resourcing Pty LtdOutplacement services program for Mr F. Murray10000100000CMD/SFBDr Niki EllisCompletion of consultations of stress audit with DFAT including report842742134214CMD/REBComputer PowerDevelopment of SOFT (Stage 1) 37168.8425987.5411,181.30Total1,865,056.251,146,300.30718,755.95AusAID Consultancies awareded from 1 July 1997—19 December 1997Name of ContractorCountryDescriptionValueSign DateBishop, CAUSTRALIAThe Provision of Personal Safety and Awareness Training for AusAID Officers$2,000Nov 4 1997Polyplan AssociatesPAPUA NEW GUINEAReview of documents for PNG-Australia Basic Education Program$2,055Jul 11 1997Truscott, PeterUNSPECIFIEDOrganisation Review in Australia of Oz Green Wetlands International UCIRM$2,081Sep 2 1997Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdSOLOMON ISLANDSSolomon Islands Provincial Family Health Project$2,262Sep 8 1997International Development Support Services Pty LtdUNSPECIFIEDCredit Union Foundation Australia (CUFA)$2,280Nov 13 1997International Development Support Services Pty LtdUNSPECIFIEDCumber land Foundation Australia (CF)$2,280Dec 1 1997World Wide Fund for NatureUNSPECIFIEDOrganiation Review Overseas—Solomon Islands$2,528Sep 4 1997Whimp, KathyPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Pharmaceutical Upgrade Project—Legal Advice for Identification Mission on National Drug Policy$2,733Oct 28 1997Uniquest LimitedCHINAAppraisal Comments on Commercial Contract related to Forage Seed Project$2,750Aug 29 1997Hassall & Associates Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Environmental Services—Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries$2,800Oct 23 1997Freehill Hollingdale & PagePAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Period Contract Provision of Legal Services, Access to Laws Project$3,000Oct 15 1997PJ Dawson and AssociatesPHILIPPINESDesk Study for 1997World Bank Consultative Group Meeting on the Philippines$3,000Dec 5 1997Tupper, GrahamUNSPECIFIEDOrganisation Review in Australia of `Every Home for Christ' and `Cumberland Foundation'$3,042Oct 22 1997Tazia Pty LtdUNSPECIFIEDOrganisation Reviews Overseas of World Wildlife Fund$3,119Sep 22 1997Economic Insights Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAAdvisory comments on AusAID 1997 report on the economy of PNG$3,200Jul 7 1997ANUTECH Pty in assoc. with NCDS and AACMPAPUA NEW GUINEAAdvisory comments on AusAID 1997report on the economy of PNG$3,400Jul 4 1997Tupper, GrahamUNSPECIFIEDOrganisational Reviews in Australia of Leprosy Mission and Emmanuel International$3,477Aug 26 1997Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGRegional HIV/AIDS Options Paper$3,575Oct 15 1997Deloitte Touche TohmatsuPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Renovation of Royal Constabulary Building and Infrastructure: Financial Assessment of Tenderers and Contractors$3,670Sep 5 1997Australian Maritime CollegeVANUATUVanuatu: Short Course Training in Compass Compensation for Mr Jeneck Samuel$3,718Nov 13 1997ANUTECH Pty in assoc. with NCDS and AACMREGIONAL—AAECPASEAN Australia Economic Cooperation Program Phase III: Mid Term Review: Terms of Reference$3,800Nov 7 1997International Development Support Services Pty LtdUNSPECIFIEDOrganisation Review in Australia—Emmanuelle International$3,930Aug 26 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdINDONESIANTT Watershed Management Project Completion Report$3,940Aug 15 1997Deloitte Touche TohmatsuPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Financial Assessment of Prequalifiers for Kokopo Road$3,952Jul 14 1997Arawang Information Bureau Pty LtdREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGPrinting of Climate Change Brochure$3,966Oct 27 1997Whelan, EllenREGIONAL—OCEANIACook Islands: Workshop on Media Skills for NGO Leaders$4,160Sep 16 1997Kea-Chin, SylvieAUSTRALIAThe Provision of Khmer Language Training for AusAID Officers$4,500Aug 9 1997C.I.T. SolutionsAUSTRALIAPresentation Skills in Cross Cultural Contexts for AusAID Officers$4,500Nov 20 1997Project Design & Management Pty LtdUNSPECIFIEDOrganisation Review Overseas—Solomon Islands$5,100Sep 7 1997Tupper, GrahamUNSPECIFIEDOrganisations Review Overseas—APACE, Solomon Islands$5,253Aug 7 1997SMEC International Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEA'Development of Scope of Services: Draft Contract: PNG Female Participation in Education, Training and Employment Project'$5,560Jul 29 1997Fred Hollows FoundationUNSPECIFIEDOrganisational Reviews Overseas—Fred Hollows Foundation—Nepal$5,975Jul 24 1997Gleeson, BrianREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGUN Financial Management Visit Consultancy.$6,000Sep 26 1997Economic Insights Pty LtdAUSTRALIAThe Provision of Tagalog Language Training for AusAID Officer$6,500Sep 8 1997APACE IncorporatedUNSPECIFIEDOrganisation Review Overseas—Solomon Islands$6,704Aug 5 1997Tanorama Australia Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Australia Targeted Training Project Consultancy Work$6,710Oct 23 1997 APACE IncorporatedUNSPECIFIEDOrganisational Review Overseas—Fred Hollows Foundation Nepal$6,833Aug 19 1997Federal Airports CorporationTONGATONGA : HA'APAI Airport Upgrade Project—Technical Advisory Service$7,136Aug 25 1997Morrow, StephenUNSPECIFIEDOrganisational Review Overseas—Appropriate Technology for Community and environment Inc.$7,311Aug 5 1997Ainslie Waldron and Associates Pty LtdSOLOMON ISLANDSSolomon Islands Science and Agriculture Education Project: Workshop of Stakeholders Facilitation Exercise$7,477Sep 15 1997Acker, TimAUSTRALIAPapua New Guinea Photography Assignment$7,755Oct 10 1997Truscott, PeterUNSPECIFIEDOrganisation Review in Australia of APCM & PV, Desk Ass of IWDA, EDA, AESOP, OSB, Soda, Desk Ass of St John of God, Interserve, Palms$7,770Dec 4 1997Hata, KiriPAPUA NEW GUINEAThe Workshop on Microcredit and Savings Activities in Papua New Guinea$7,848Jul 31 1997Hickson, RAUSTRALIAThe Provision of Microfinance Training for AusAID Officers$8,000Nov 25 1997Drake OverloadWORLD—UNSPECIFIEDAttendance and Participation at the Fourth Trial Management Committee Meeting at Abidjan, Ivory Coast, 5-7December 1997$8,297Dec 1 1997Deloitte Touche TohmatsuPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Financial Assessment of Prequalification submissions for the Bridge Replacement Upgrading Program (BRUP)$8,714Sep 15 1997MacIntyre, ThuanAUSTRALIAThe Provision of Vietnamese Language Training to AusAID Officers$10,000Nov 18 1997Australian Corporate Information SolutionsAUSTRALIAIntranet Programming and Support Services.$10,000Nov 25 1997Pacific Emergency Management AssocSOLOMON ISLANDSAdviser to Solomon Islands National Disaster Council$10,000Dec 12 1997Nguyen, TienAUSTRALIATHE PROVISION OF VIETNAMESE LANGUAGE TRAINING$10,000Dec 16 1997BDO Nelson ParkhillTHAILANDBangkok Microenterprise Development Project—Substantive Audit of Sydney Based Contractor—Opportunity International Australia (OIA)$10,055Dec 2 1997Acker, TimAUSTRALIASouth Pacific Photography Assignment—Tim Acker$10,678Jul 29 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAWestern Province Coastal Zone Management Project$10,816Jul 14 1997Dick, GordonPAPUA NEW GUINEAReview of PNG Human Resource Development Forestry Project$10,880Oct 29 1997Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdREGIONAL—SOUTH PACIFICUNICEF: Pacific Regional Hepatitis B Project$11,097Aug 29 1997Jasley Enterprises Pty LtdCHINAChina: Study to Assist With Response to Simons Committee Recommendation on Private Sector Linkages Program$11,400Jul 3 1997Layton, SuzannaREGIONAL—OCEANIAResearch on Media Training needs in the Pacific (Vanuatu)$11,643Jul 22 1997Peggs Company Pty LtdREGIONAL—OCEANIASouth Pacific Media Initiative: Workshop on Audience Survey Formulation & Administration$11,957Nov 12 1997Seddon, NAUSTRALIAThe Provision of Contract Law Training and Presentations for AusAID Contract Officers$12,000Oct 27 1997Kirramore International Development ServcesCHINAMixed Credits Agents' Study$12,100Jul 2 1997University of New EnglandVANUATUVanuatu: Short course training for Mr Malachi Ernest$12,323Nov 24 1997NSW TAFEKIRIBATIKiribati: Workshop on Motor Rewinding$12,440Sep 30 1997Morris, AlanSAMOASamoa Treasury Advice$12,750Oct 16 1997Atkinson, TerranceKIRIBATIKiribati: Workshop on Automatic Transmission$12,950Sep 30 1997Uniquest LimitedFIJIFiji Department of Inland Revenue Institutional Strengthening Project: Prefeasibility Study$13,019Nov 6 1997IDP Education Australia LtdCHINAChina Economics & Foreign Trade Training Project$13,078Aug 5 1997Oz Child IncorporatedUNSPECIFIEDANCP POOL FUNDING$13,681Aug 21 1997University of Technology SydneyREGIONAL—OCEANIAPacific Media Training Project$13,824Aug 13 1997Economic Insights Pty LtdTONGATonga—Review of Assistance to Ministry of Finance$14,110Aug 11 1997 ANUTECH Pty LtdCHINAShort Term Training in Rural Projects Design, Monitoring & Eval for Project Officer in Foreign Economic Cooperation Division of Inner Mongolia DOFTEC$14,125Aug 28 1997ANUTECH Pty LtdCHINAShort Term Training in Rural Projects Design, Monitoring & Evaluation for Project Officer from COFTEC, Guangdong Province$14,125Aug 28 1997ANUTECH Pty LtdCHINAShort Term Training in Rural Projects Design, Monitoring & Evaluation for Project Officer from DOFTEC, Hebei Province$14,125Aug 28 1997ANUTECH Pty LtdCHINAShort Term Training in Rural Projects Design, Monitoring & Evaluation for Project Officer from DOFTEC, Tibet$14,125Aug 28 1997ANUTECH Pty LtdCHINAShort Term Training in Rural Projects Design, Monitoring & Evaluation for Section Chief of DITEA, MOFTEC$14,125Aug 28 1997Lloyd Jones Consulting Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Access to Laws Project—Field Appraisal$14,314Dec 1 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdSAMOAWestern Samoa Health Sector Project Identification Mission: Hospital Operations$14,636Jul 3 1997Hewson, RoyINDONESIAIndonesia Mixed Credit Project Appraisals$14,962Oct 22 1997SMS Consulting Group Pty LtdAUSTRALIAAccess by Overseas Posts to the Activity Management System (AMS) and Student Information Managemnet System (SIMS)$15,000Sep 15 1997Clayton UtzPAPUA NEW GUINEADevelopment of MOU and Annexure Between the Government of PNG and the Government of Australia for the Elementary Teacher Education Support Project$15,000Oct 9 1997SAGRIC International Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Primary and Secondary Teacher Education Project: Risk Management Workshop and PDD Revisions$15,000Nov 18 1997Ross Naylor and Co Pty LtdVANUATUA Study to Assess The Likely Demand and Needs for Medical Officers and Nurse Practitioners in Vanuatu To the Year 2015$15,680Sep 1 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdTONGATonga: feasibility study and design mission for the health sector planning and management projec$15,874Jul 2 1997Sloane Cook & King Pty LtdREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGMonitoring & Evaluation Capacity-Building of Partner Governments Study—Phase I$15,882Oct 23 1997NT Department of Asian Relations, Trade & IndustryKIRIBATIKiribati: Workshop on Electronic Fuel Injection$16,240Nov 18 1997Ainslie Waldron and Associates Pty LtdSAMOASamoa: Education Institutional Strengthening Project—Terms of Reference for Feasibility/Design Study$16,634Oct 1 1997International Development Program Education Australia Ltd & AustralianKIRIBATIAusAID Participation In Kiribati Sanitation, Public Health and Environment Improvement Project$17,043Sep 12 1997IDP Education Australia LtdTONGATonga: TESOL Training Course for Private School$17,695Dec 23 1997Computer Power Education Pty LtdSOLOMON ISLANDSSix-month short course training for Solomon Islands student: academic and management fees, travel and living expenses$17,912Jul 4 1997State Of South AustraliaKIRIBATIKiribati: Workshop on Refrigeration Engineering$17,976Nov 13 1997Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdPHILIPPINESPhilippines: Fifth Health and Population Technical Advisory Group (TAG 5) Mission—Jennifer Middleton$18,547Sep 12 1997Bird CameronREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGAudit of Coffey MPW Pty Ltd .$18,609Jul 7 1997Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPharmaceutical Upgrade Project—Identification Mission on National Drug Policy$18,794Sep 30 1997SBSREGIONAL—OCEANIAMarshall Islands: Workshop on Media in Promotion of Governance & Community Development$19,050Sep 16 1997Price Waterhouse UrwickPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Facilitator for Balus Risk Management Workshop$19,184Sep 4 1997 Efira Services Pty LtdKIRIBATIAusAID Participation In Kiribati Sanitation, Public Health and Environment Improvement Project$19,214Sep 23 1997Anthea WebbPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Public Relations Assistance to the PNG Emergency Relief Effort$19,680Nov 21 1997BDO Nelson ParkhillREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGFollow-up audit of Caritas Australia$19,802Nov 3 1997Economic Insights Pty LtdSAMOAProject Monitoring Group for Samoan Treasury Department Institutional Strengthening Project$19,815Aug 28 1997Clayton UtzPHILIPPINESPhilippines Aeromagnetic Survey Project—Tender/Contract Drafting$20,000Sep 18 1997Latchem, ColinREGIONAL—SOUTH PACIFICUSPNet Project Design Mission$20,000Sep 19 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Organisation Development Period Contract$20,000Sep 24 1997Microfinance ServicesPAPUA NEW GUINEAThe Review of Micro-credit and Savings Activities in Papua New Guinea$20,251Jul 30 1997Clayton UtzPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Education Infrastructure & Curriculum Materials Project—Provision of Legal Services$20,300Sep 12 1997Polyplan AssociatesFIJIFiji Basic Education, Management and Teacher Upgrading Project—Quality Assurance Mission—Curriculum for Teacher Education$21,687Sep 30 1997Unisearch LimitedPHILIPPINESPhilippines: Technical Advisory ServicesFacility Project—Field Review$21,702Sep 9 1997Bird CameronREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGAudit of OPCV by Bird Cameron$21,918Jul 30 1997Watters, Les (Mr)INDONESIAIndonesia: Review of the Management of Australian Development Scholarships$21,998Sep 15 1997Macquarie Research LtdREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGTracer Studies: Guidelines and Standards$22,000Nov 10 1997SMS Consulting Group Pty LtdREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGAusAID's Activity Management System (AMS) Planning Consultancy$22,250Oct 29 1997CMPS&F Pty LtdREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGSouth Pacific Cluster Evaluation—Civil Engineer$22,920Nov 6 1997As If ProductionsREGIONAL—OCEANIASouth Pacific Media Initiative: Documentary Production for Women's Development (Tonga/Fiji)$23,008Oct 14 1997Project Design & Management Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG National Fisheries College—Project Design Mission$23,207Sep 23 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdFIJIFiji Trilateral Health Promotion Project—Mid Term Review$24,033Oct 23 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICAPublic Sctor Support Program: South Africa: Human Rights$24,130Jul 9 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICASouth Africa Public Sector Support Program—Gender / Media Consultant$24,320Sep 26 1997Dunstan, GlennPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: National Health service Radio—Concept Design Study Team$24,550Sep 17 1997Computer Power Education Pty LtdSOLOMON ISLANDSNine-month short course training for Solomon Islands student: academic and management fees, travel and living expenses$24,640Jul 4 1997Centre for International EconomicsREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGFunding Issues of the Concessional Programs of the MDBs$25,000Jul 13 1997Small Business Development Service Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAReview of the SYB/IYB Project$25,000Oct 17 1997Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAReview of Standards for Papua New Guinea District Health Management$25,000Nov 13 1997IDP Education Australia LtdPHILIPPINESPhilippines: Fifth Health and Population Technical Advisory Group (TAG 5) Mission—Dr Roger King$25,080Sep 16 1997Economic Insights Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAAppraisal of the Balus Concept Design and Project Design Document (Phase 1)$25,333Aug 15 1997Economic Insights Pty LtdVANUATUVanuatu—Assistance for Preparation of Budget for Department of Forests$25,510Jul 15 1997Unisearch LimitedVANUATUMedical Officers and Nurse Practitioners in Vanuatu to the Year 2015$25,860Aug 19 1997Watters, Les (Mr)INDONESIAIndonesia Women's Health and Family Planning, Phase II Redesign Mission$26,232Nov 7 1997Allen, Susan (Dr)INDONESIAIndonesia Women's Health and Family Planning Phase 2 Redesign$26,794Nov 7 1997Efira Services Pty LtdVANUATUVanuatu: Design Mission for a Project to Support the Health Sector$27,364Oct 1 1997Water Resources Consulting ServicesPALESTINIAN TERRITORIESMiddle East: Water Data Banks Workshop$27,370Dec 4 1997Coffey MPW Pty LtdVIETNAMVietnam Provincial Water Supply Project TAG$27,616Dec 4 1997 Harris, ElizabethREGIONAL—SOUTH PACIFICReview of Pacific Regional Health Projects$28,040Nov 26 1997Buzy, JanineINDONESIAIndonesia HIV & STD Prevention & Care Project Technical Advisory Missioni$28,647Aug 13 1997Parks, WillFIJIFiji: Taveuni Rural & Community Health—Feasibility Design Mission$28,677Nov 13 1997Giles, Mike MrMULTI-COUNTRY SOUTH PACIFICReview of South Pacific Economic and Social Database$28,925Dec 2 1997Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGBackground Paper for the Development of AusAID Policy on Health: Issues and Trends in International Health.$30,000Aug 6 1997Blake Dawson WaldronAUSTRALIASpecialised legal training for AusAID state offices$30,000Aug 12 1997Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Pharmaceutical Upgrade Project—Design Mission$30,220Nov 18 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICADepartment of Labour—Central Organisation for Trade Testing$30,420Jul 9 1997IDP Education Australia LtdPHILIPPINESPhilippines: Philippines-Australia Community Assistance Program (PACAP) Review$30,748Nov 3 1997Evans & Peck ManagementPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Primary and Secondary Teacher Education Project: Risk Management Workshop: Facilitation and Risk Managment Plan$30,900Nov 25 1997Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdINDONESIAIndonesia Women's Health and Family Planning Phase II Redesign Mission$30,912Nov 7 1997ANUTECH Pty LtdMULTI-COUNTRY SOUTH PACIFICSolomon Islands Economic Report$32,460Nov 17 1997International Development Program Education Australia Ltd & AustralianINDIACoal India Limited Training Project Design Mission—AACM International Pty Ltd Services$32,471Nov 20 1997IDP Education Australia LtdVANUATUVanuatu: Design Mission for the Secondary Teacher Education Project$32,548Jul 3 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICAProvision of advice and guidance to the South African Telecommunications Authority under the public sector support programme$32,600Jul 2 1997Oceania Health Consulting Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPharmaceutal Upgrade Project—Design Mission$32,920Nov 20 1997Paradigm Alliance Pty Ltd, ThePAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Finance Mechanisms Study$33,480Aug 22 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdPHILIPPINESFourth Philippines Health Monitoring and Review Mission (TAG 4)—Ms Mary-Anne McDonald$33,768Jul 17 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: National Health Service Radio—Concept Design Study Team$33,795Sep 15 1997Heywood, AlisonFIJIFiji: Taveuni Rural & Community Health—Feasibility/Design Mission$34,120Nov 13 1997Economic Insights Pty LtdVANUATUVanuatu—Assistance for Preparation of Budget for Department of Forests$34,616Jul 15 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICASouth Africa Public Sector Support Program—Health Financing Consultancy$34,792Sep 25 1997Kirramore International Development ServcesREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGSouth Pacific Cluster Evaluation—Team Leader/Evaluation Specialist$34,898Nov 4 1997Unisearch LimitedVANUATUDesign Mission for a project to support the Health Sector in Vanuatu$35,000Oct 10 1997Polyplan AssociatesINDONESIAIndonesia HIV/AIDS and STD Prevention and Care Project Technical Advisory Mission$35,303Jul 28 1997Julie Lipski & AssociatesFIJICivil Service Reform—SES Position Descriptions$35,440Aug 20 1997IDP Education Australia LtdREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGInstitution/Education Specialist-South Pacific Cluster Evaluation$35,760Nov 6 1997Allaburton, RobertFIJIReview of Government Training Centre$36,219Aug 25 1997AMBIDJI GROUP PTY LTD (SYDNEY)PAPUA NEW GUINEAAppraisal of the Balus Concept Design and Project Design Document (Phase 1)$36,895Aug 22 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdVANUATUDesign Mission for a Project to Support the Health Sector in Vanuatu$37,540Sep 25 1997Macquarie Research LtdINDONESIAReview & Design of Indonesia-Australia Specialised Training Project$37,584Jul 3 1997Neilsen, Graham (Dr)PAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Integrated National AIDS Support Project—Project Design Mission$37,712Nov 10 1997Fervent Pty LimitedAUSTRALIAAccrual Reporting Consultancy$38,030Jul 7 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICASouth Africa: Groundwater Mapping Short Term Training$38,344Sep 26 1997Overseas Service BureauTONGATonga: Pacific Technical Assistance Facility—Surgeon Specialist$39,365Sep 23 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Pharmaceutical Upgrade Project—Design Mission$39,631Nov 19 1997Pham, Thu ThuyAUSTRALIATHE Provision of Vietnamese Language Training$40,000Jul 7 1997 Centre for International EconomicsBANGLADESHThe Bangladesh Economic Food Aid Review$40,000Oct 24 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdPHILIPPINESFourth Philippines Health Monitoring and Review Mission (TAG 4)—Ms Pamela Thomas$40,207Jul 22 1997Unisearch LimitedPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Agricultural Sector: Project Identification Mission$41,100Nov 27 1997Efira Services Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Design Mission for a Project Design for an Integrated national Aids Support Project$41,350Nov 14 1997Cox, PeterPHILIPPINESPhilippines-Australia Community Assistance Program—Review$42,282Nov 9 1997NT UniversitySOLOMON ISLANDSNTU—Short Course Training for Solomon Island Students$43,000Sep 26 1997Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdFIJIFiji: Kadavu Sub-Division Rural Health Project$43,322Sep 5 1997Hassall & Associates Pty LtdSAMOAWestern Samoa Fisheries Extension and Training (WSFETP) Project$43,848Jul 9 1997Economic Insights Pty LtdMULTI-COUNTRY SOUTH PACIFICSolomon Islands Economic Report$44,356Nov 17 1997Gordon, Jean (Ms)REGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGPNG: Cluster Evaluation: Institutions Specialist$45,000Jul 7 1997Saovana-Spriggs, RuthAUSTRALIAProvision of Tok Pisin Language Training$45,000Aug 20 1997University of QueenslandAUSTRALIAPreparation of research document into alternative methods of delivering aid to small and vulnerable states$48,480Jul 11 1997Unisearch LimitedCHINAChina: Preparation ofAppraisal report—Beijing Natural Gas Project$49,708Dec 28 1997Mimnaugh, MickREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGPNG: Cluster Evaluation: Institution Strengthening Projects: Team Leader$50,000Jul 14 1997Project Design & Management Pty LtdREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGEnvironment$50,000Oct 23 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICASouth Africa: Public Sector Support Program: Industrial Relations Study Tour$50,600Jul 17 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICADepartment of Labour—Employment Services Consultancy$50,930Aug 20 1997Australian Red Cross SocietyINDONESIAIndonesia: Health Assistance Team$53,220Oct 10 1997Uniquest LimitedVIETNAMVietnam Provincial Water Supply Project-Technical Advisory Group—Engineering Adviser$55,413Sep 1 1997Uniquest LimitedINDONESIAIndonesia: Mixed Credit Project Appraisals—West Java Water Supply Project Field Appraisal Mission$55,742Nov 14 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICAGender Equity Task Consultancy$56,860Sep 25 1997Palm ManagementAUSTRALIAStudy of AusAID Work Functions and Activities$58,000Aug 1 1997Curtin Consultancy Services LtdKIRIBATIKiribati HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Short Course Training$58,500Sep 30 1997Mackenzie, ReginaAUSTRALIAThe Provision of Tok Pisin Language Training$60,000Jul 10 1997Gutteridge Haskins Davey Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Assistance to Department of Provincial and Local-level Government to finalise "Handbook on the Roles and Responsibilities of Different L$60,000Oct 24 1997Unisearch LimitedCHINACHINA: FIELD APPRAISAL OF THE GUANGZHOU PUBLIC TRANSPORT ENVIRONMENT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT$61,229Sep 8 1997Simonelli, AnthonyPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Technical Assistance for Bougainville$62,000Sep 22 1997Care AustraliaPAPUA NEW GUINEAWater Supply Consultancy for Drought Relief$62,385Dec 9 1997Australian Corporate Information SolutionsAUSTRALIADevelopment Education Internet Development—technical contract$70,600Sep 5 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICAKwaZulu Natal Water Supply and Sanitation Project Component 3$74,165Aug 1 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICASouth Africa: PSSP: Development Banking Consultancy$74,340Sep 2 1997Australian Corporate Information SolutionsAUSTRALIAIntranet Management$75,000Sep 8 1997Bryce, Paul (Dr)LAOSLaos: Houaphan Micro Hydro Power Project$75,000Nov 20 1997ORCA Consultants Pty LtdINDONESIAIndonesia Water Supply and Sanitation Technical Advisory Group$75,000Dec 16 1997People and StrategyAUSTRALIAProvision of Consultancy Services for the Performance Appraisal Schemes Review$76,000Oct 17 1997Sloane Cook & King Pty LtdREGIONAL—CROSS REGIONAL PROGPNG Agricultural Cluster Evaluation$76,250Aug 7 1997Unisearch LimitedINDONESIAIndonesia: Field appraisal of the Quality Improvement of Private Vocational Schools Project$78,581Aug 25 1997 Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Integrated National AIDS Support Project—Design Mission for Project Design$78,730Nov 10 1997Hetherington Kingsbury Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Commodities Assistance Program (CASP)—Drought Relief$90,000Oct 29 1997Care AustraliaPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG—Rapid Assessment Mission—Drought and Frost$92,595Sep 18 1997Overseas Service BureauTONGATonga: Pacific Technical Assistance Facility—IT Analyst/Programming Adviser—Tonga Development Bank$94,460Sep 23 1997Overseas Service BureauKIRIBATIKiribati: Pacific Technical Assistance Facility: Senior State Advocate$94,460Oct 1 1997Enuma ElishSAMOAWestern Samoa Health Information Systems Project$95,000Aug 1 1997Unisearch LimitedINDONESIAField Appraisal Of Outer Islands Hybrid Energy Project In Indonesia$96,188Aug 8 1997McNeil, KenPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Advisory Support Facility Health Adviser$98,017Nov 7 1997Hetherington Kingsbury Pty LtdTONGATonga CASP Shipping—Electrical eqpt for Cyclone Hina reconstruction$100,000Aug 20 1997Valubi Pty LtdSOLOMON ISLANDSSolomon Islands: Review of the Ministry of Finance Computing System$100,000Nov 19 1997Robsearch Australia Pty LtdVANUATUVanuatu: Natural Resources Sector Assistance: Minerals Regulations TA$106,257Jul 25 1997Nairn, R. J. & Partners Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Land Transport Planning Project$109,587Oct 22 1997Chisholm Agriculture Pty LtdCAMBODIACambodia Australia Agricultural Extension Project—Technical Adviser$110,000Sep 29 1997Uniquest LimitedMULTI-COUNTRY SOUTH PACIFICJoint Australia and New Zealand Review of ADB's Role in Promoting Public Sector Reform in the Pacific Islands$113,757Nov 25 1997NSW Rural Fire ServiceINDONESIAIndonesia: Emergency Fire Management Team$115,000Oct 17 1997Church Missionary SocietyUNSPECIFIEDIPSS FUNDING UNDER THE ANCP$116,724Nov 7 1997GP & A PTY LTDTONGATonga Fisheries Sector Planning Project$117,368Aug 20 1997Tanorama Australia Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Tertiary Students on AusAID Scholarships Tracer Study$124,600Aug 27 1997Macquarie Research LtdCHINAChina Mongolia Education &Training Program Development$129,500Oct 17 1997World Wide Project Management Services Pty LtdPHILIPPINESPhiliippines Northern Mindanao Agricultural Extension Project Feasibility /Design Study$149,742Oct 21 1997IDP Education Australia LtdPHILIPPINESPhilippines:Administration of the Application Processes for the Australian Development Scholarships (Merit/Equity Category—1998/1999 Intakes)$149,789Aug 14 1997Paulian Association—PALMSUNSPECIFIEDVolunteers Funding for Palian Association—PALMS$150,000Oct 14 1997Adventist Development and Relief Agency,VIETNAMVietnam: Delta 97disaster$150,000Nov 27 1997Australian National UniversityPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Emergency Relief Fund—Drought and Frost Situation Assessment and Agricultural Recovery Strategy$155,810Sep 18 1997Care AustraliaETHIOPIADry Land Farming Project$160,626Mar 18 1998 M.I.M. Holdings LimitedMONGOLIAMongolia Copper Smelter Investment Proposal$161,965Sep 8 1997SMEC International Pty LtdPHILIPPINESPhilippines: North-west Mindanao Water Supply and Sanitation Project—Feasibility/Design Study$162,950Nov 6 1997Uniquest LimitedCAMBODIACambodia-Australia Agricultural Extension Project—Agricultural Education Adviser—Mrs Marjorie Payne$164,416Jul 16 1997CMPS&F Pty LtdCHINAChina Environment Initiative Project Identification Mission$167,008Sep 24 1997Quaker Service Australia IncVIETNAMQSA Vietnam Pilot Project for Sustainable Resettlement Villages$174,505Sep 8 1997SimaidUNSPECIFIEDANCP IPSS FUNDING$197,624Aug 21 1997EDUCO Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPapua New Guinea Ombudsman Commission Institutional Strengthening Project$217,866Nov 12 1997ANUTECH Pty LtdINDONESIAEconomic Study of the Eastern Islands of Indonesia$222,762Aug 15 1997SMEC International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICASouth Africa Public Sector Support Program—Health Sector$225,000Oct 23 1997World Vision AustraliaVIETNAMVietnam: Ca Mau storm relief$279,392Nov 27 1997 Care AustraliaVIETNAMEmergency relief from the effects of Typhoon Linda in Soc Trang and Ca Mau Provinces$299,067Nov 27 1997World Vision AustraliaINDONESIAJayawijaya Emergency Relief Project$300,000Oct 29 1997Family Planning AustraliaVIETNAMRural Women in Community Development and Family Health in Vietnam$318,100Jul 2 1997Plan International AustraliaVIETNAMPLAN Nutrition Education and Maternal Child Health Project$347,260Aug 4 1997AMPCASS Consulting Pty LtdTONGATonga: Reform Of The Civil Service Pension Scheme Project$420,250Nov 13 1997Kidston International Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPapua New Guinea Legal Institutions Strengthening Project$470,190Nov 7 1997Hetherington Kingsbury Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Commodities Assistance Program (CASP)$500,000Aug 1 1997Australian Red Cross SocietyWORLD—REST OFEmergency Medical Placemenrts Scheme 1997/98—1999/2000$600,000Nov 27 1997SMEC International Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEANissan Island—Holy Cross High School Project$694,425Dec 1 1997Tanorama Australia Pty LtdVANUATUPacific Vanuatu Training Scholarships Unit Coordination Project$717,769Aug 13 1997Health Partnerships International Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Rural Health Program$778,154Oct 23 1997Country Fire Services (South Australia)INDONESIAIndonesia: Aerial Water Bombing Assistance$1,000,000Oct 15 1997Australian National UniversityINDONESIAANU Indonesia Project$1,005,473Nov 7 1997Care AustraliaUNSPECIFIEDCARE APSS EOL$1,032,883Dec 16 1997Fletcher Construction Company LtdSOLOMON ISLANDSSolomon Islands: Construction of Kukum Library$1,168,481Oct 3 1997Fletcher Construction Company LtdSAMOAWestern Samoa: Customs Department Management and Technical Strengthening Project: Capital Works Component$1,432,564Nov 4 1997SMEC International Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Bougainville Transitional Government Support Project$1,500,000Nov 7 1997MDG Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Advisory Support Facility Interim Short Term Contractor$1,624,000Oct 24 1997Queensland TAFE InternationalSAMOAWestern Samoa Polytechnic Project Phase II$1,697,535Oct 8 1997Gutteridge Haskins Davey Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Office of Civil Aviation: implementation of financial management information system (MIS) project$1,732,928Jul 1 1997SAGRIC International Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Elementary Teacher Education Support Project$1,878,660Sep 3 1997SMEC International Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Commodity Assistance Program (Drought Relief)$2,000,000Oct 29 1997Kinakon (PNG) Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEABougainville Health & Education Project—Main Package 2A (small package at Tarlena)$2,077,962Sep 30 1997Sommer and Staff Constructions Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Gazelle Reconstruction Project—Design and Construction of Police Offices and Ancillary Facilities at Kokopo$2,166,306Nov 16 1997Fletcher Morobe ConstructionPAPUA NEW GUINEAEnga Highway Upgrading Project: Package (1)—1996 : Alyu Creek and the Saa Creek Bridges$2,790,472Aug 5 1997Overseas Projects Corporation of Vic LtdFIJIFiji Customs Department Institutional Strengthening Project$2,844,815Sep 25 1997SMEC International Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Commodities Assistance Program$3,000,000Oct 17 1997Maunsell Pty LtdVIETNAMVietnam: My Thuan Bridge Phase 4—Construction Supervision$3,640,000Aug 14 1997Hassall & Associates Pty LtdTONGATonga Environmental and Planning Management Project$3,722,509Nov 3 1997Kane Reeves International Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Gazelle Reconstruction Project—Construction Of New Community Schools At Baliora, Clifton And Vanapalading$3,880,208Oct 16 1997Downer Construction PNG Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Gazelle Reconstruction Project—Construction Of The New Warangoi High School$3,919,598Oct 30 1997International Development Program Australia Ltd & Australian Council fCAMBODIACambodia Australia National Examinations Project$5,904,513Nov 4 1997International Development Support Services Pty LtdINDONESIAIndonesia: Healthy Mothers Healthy Babies Child Survival Project$6,793,842Dec 3 1997BHP Engineering Pty LtdLAOSLaos Land Titling Project$6,903,169Sep 17 1997GRM International Pty LtdSOUTH AFRICACapacity Building Program South Africa$8,000,000Sep 17 1997 Lae Builders & Contractors Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG Gazelle Reconstruction Project—Design And Construction Of Police Accommodation Compound at Baliora$8,346,344Nov 14 1997Overseas Service BureauUNSPECIFIEDOverseas Service Bureau (OSB)$9,109,925Aug 18 1997ACIL Australia Pty LtdPAPUA NEW GUINEAPNG: Implementation of the National Trade Testing and Certification Support Project (NTTCS)$10,135,156Jul 7 1997Hassall & Associates Pty LtdPHILIPPINESPhilippines Mindanao Community Health Project$19,213,210Sep 12 1997Total302$133,915,6762053(Question No. 2599)25992053Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith5V5PerthALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Development, upon notice, on 4 December 1997:(1) Have Airservices Australia and the RAAF made an agreement for the future use of airspace over and around Perth; if so, (a) what are the details of the agreement and (b) what are the scope, details and planned consultation with State and local government and the local community on the agreement.(2) Further to the answer to question No. 1640 (Hansard , 27 August 1997, page 7217) concerning Perth Airport and RAAF Base Pearce, what progress has been made with the computer model of the Perth/Pearce area commissioned to enable a more detailed analysis of air traffic management issues.2053Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPTransport and Regional Development10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Airservices Australia has provided the following advice.(1) Yes.(a) I will arrange for Airservices to send a copy of the agreement to the honourable member.(b) The Noise Abatement Sub Committee of the Perth Airport Consultative Committee has been briefed on the agreement. Representatives from areas that would be affected by the changes were invited to the subcommittee meeting. Separate briefings have also been provided to Federal, State and Local Government representatives.(2) The various options for air traffic management were subject to computer modelling and the results considered by the Perth/Pearce Airspace Review Committee in formulating the RAAF/Airservices agreement on the future use of airspace. Further computer modelling is being undertaken to assist with the detailed design work. 2053(Question No. 2640)26402053Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) Has the Minister or the Minister's Department provided grants to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) or bodies related to the ACCI since 2 March 1996; if so, (a) in each case, (i) what was the nature of the grant and (ii) for what purposes was it provided and (b) what total sum was provided.(2) To what boards, committees or other bodies for which the Minister has portfolio responsibility have (a) Mr Mark Patterson, the chief executive of ACCI, or (b) other officers or staff of ACCI been appointed since 2 March 1996.(3) What sums has the Commonwealth paid in sitting fees, board fees, travel costs and related expenses with respect to each appointment referred to in part (2).2053Smith, Warwick, MPMr Warwick SmithGJ4BassLPMinister for Family Services10—The Minister for Communications and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Department of Communications and the Arts has provided no funding to the ACCI since the Government was elected on 2 March 1996.With membership comprising State and Territory Chambers of Commerce and national employer and industry associations, the ACCI represents over 350,000 businesses, making it the largest business organisation in Australia. Given the size of its representative base, I am not prepared to authorise committal of the considerable human resources needed for the searching of records to obtain information to answer the element of the question pertaining to grants made to bodies related to the ACCI. (2) (a) Nil.(2) (b) and (3)Nil in relation to current senior ACCI office holders.I am not prepared to authorise committal of the considerable human resources needed for the searching of records to determine whether any other officers or staff of the ACCI have been appointed to boards, committees or other bodies for which I have portfolio responsibility.2054(Question No. 2663)26632054Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) What changes has the Government made to the visa application process for (a) Filipino and (b) other foreign nationals since March 1996.(2) What advice has the Government (a) sought and (b) provided on whether the changes in visa application process have been a cause for an increase in the number of onshore refugee applications.(3) Has he or his office sought, or has his Department provided, a briefing on whether the increase in the arrivals of so-called `jumbo people' from Singapore is connected with Qantas having contracted out its ticket checking and boarding pass and passport matching processes in Singapore; if so what (a) concerns has his Department expressed and (b) action is he taking.2054Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The Government has not changed visa application processes for Filipinos since March 1996.(b) A universal visa system for entry to Australia remains in place, as it was before that date, under which all foreign citizens seeking to enter or remain in Australia must meet the criteria for a visa as set out in the Migration Act and Regulations. However the processes used to issue visas continue to change and adapt to keep step with the growth in applications for visitor visas. For example, the Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) was introduced in Singapore in September 1996 and has since been made available to a total of 26 low risk nationalities. The ETA is not available in countries where experience indicates a high risk of overstay.Prior to the implementation of ETA arrangements were introduced for authorised travel agents to receive visitor visa applications. Details of these applications are forwarded by fax to the responsible DIMA post for approval by an authorised officer. The performance of agents participating in these arrangements is subject to close monitoring procedures. In many cases these agency arrangements have been superseded by the ETA.(2) I have received advice from my Department on the operation of visa processes, and on the factors which affect applications for on-shore protection. As I announced on 25 June 1997 the Government has also introduced a number of measures to address the abuse of on-shore refugee application procedures. These include:. limitations to work rights for people making protection visa applications. introduction of a post-decision fee of $1,000 for unsuccessful Refugee Review Tribunal applications.These measures will act as a disincentive for people who are trying to extend their stay in Australia or who have overstayed their visa and are simply abusing the system by making non bona fide applications.(3) No.By way of background, for this program year (i.e. as at 28 February 1998), 202 persons travelling by air from Singapore were refused entry at Australian airports. This compares with a total of 351 for the previous program year. These figures would indicate that the number of persons refused entry after arriving from Singapore for this program year may be less than for the corresponding period last year.Checking of boarding passes and passport matching is undertaken on some flights to Australia by personnel of the Singapore Air Terminal Service. This has been the situation for some time. An officer of my Department is seconded to Qantas at Singapore airport to provide advice to Qantas and other airlines on the validity of documentation held by passengers wishing to board flights to Australia. This officer also provides training to airline staff regarding requirements for passengers travelling to Australia. My Department also monitors the arrival of inadmissible passengers at Australian airports and provides information to airlines alerting them to possible attempts to circumvent our entry requirements.2054(Question No. 2668)26682054Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) What surveys has his Department conducted into community attitudes to deporting foreign nationals who have been convicted for serious crime including those who have resided in Australia for more than ten years and what advice has his Department provided on the matter.(2) How do the provisions of Australian law relating to the deportation of foreign nationals convicted for serious crime compare with those of other nations.(3) Is he able to say how many nations (a) observe a statute of limitations on the deportation of foreign nationals convicted for serious crime and (b) deport foreign nationals for crimes committed (i) only in the country of residence or (ii) in other countries.(4) What action will he take on the deportation from Australia of foreign nationals convicted for serious crime.(5) Has he discussed with the Attorney-General making changes to the relevant legislation retrospective.2055Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs provides me with a monthly report on community attitudes to topical issues of relevance to my portfolio. Past issues have included reporting on community attitudes to the deportation of foreign nationals. For example, my Department sought community reaction to the government's decision to deport a permanent Australian resident and convicted criminal, Mr Archie McCafferty, to the United Kingdom. This was reported in April 1997. In September 1997 community feedback was sought on this Government's efforts to exclude foreign criminals from Australia. More recently, following passage on 18 November 1997 of the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (Strengthening of Provisions relating to Character and Conduct) Bill 1997, I received community views on the Bill. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration is also canvassing community opinions which will be reflected in its report on its Inquiry into Criminal Deportation.(2) Deportation laws of other countries are similar in many respects to the provisions of Australian law relating to the deportation of foreign nationals convicted for serious crime. Because of its bulk, information on a representative group of countries which has been received from Australian missions abroad has been provided separately to the honourable member.(The information is too bulky to be published in Hansard . A copy of the papers is available at the House of Representatives Table Office.)(3) In relation to countries listed at Part (2) above, those with definitive responses are as follows:Country(a) observe statute of limitations(b) deport for crimes committedin lawin practicein country of residencein other countriesUKNothing in legislationYesYesPersons with "undesirable background" subject to exclusionUSANoNoYesYesGreeceNoLength of residence taken into considerationYesStatus considered under provisions of security and public health interestsIndonesiaNoNoDepends on circumstances of the caseDepends on circumstances of the case(4) I will consider for deportation any non-citizen present in Australia who commits an offence which brings that non-citizen within the powers conferred by the Migration Act 1958. This is a discretionary power which will only be exercised after consideration of all the relevant facts and the merits of the case.(5) No. Any such discussions would not be appropriate prior to the Joint Standing Committee on Migration submitting its report. 2055(Question No. 2677)26772055Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 2 March 1998:(1) What processes are used to make criminal and character checks of visa applicants from Lebanon.(2) Has an amnesty been announced in Lebanon for convicted and suspected drug criminals; if so, what steps will be taken to ensure that convicted or suspected drug criminals whose records have been erased to not gain visas for entry into Australia.2056Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPImmigration and Multicultural Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Applicants for visas for a stay in Australia of more than twelve months are required to obtain a police certificate from the Lebanese Internal Security Forces. The Australian Embassy in Beirut then verifies the accuracy of information provided through established liaison channels.(2) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is aware of the proclamation by the Lebanese Government of its drug amnesty law and has noted that the law also increases penalties for new offences. It would be inappropriate to release details about what is being done as a result of this announcement as it might compromise or jeopardise departmental operations. Regardless of the amnesty, there will continue to be appropriate mechanisms to protect Australia from the entry of criminals.2056(Question No. 2741)27412056Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Health and Family Services, upon notice, on 10 March 1998:(1) Is he able to say that recent changes to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations will not prevent access to therapeutic goods.(2) Will the changed regulations increase restrictions on the ability of the therapeutic goods industry to advertise its products.(3) Has the Therapeutic Goods Administration (a) confiscated and stopped supply of a natural progesterone cream without explanation and (b) restricted the use of promotional material connected with the product including use of the term `natural progesterone' in labelling.(4) Has his Department assessed research into the efficacy of natural progesterone treatments and their claimed beneficial outcomes as an alternative to hormone replacement therapies.2056Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4ChisholmLPHealth and Family Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I can confirm that recent changes to the Therapeutic Goods Regulations will not prevent access to therapeutic goods.The requirements for access to therapeutic goods are outlined in the principal legislation—the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989; and the amendments to the Regulations do not alter these requirements. (2) The changed regulations will not increase restrictions on the ability of the therapeutic goods industry to advertise its products.The basis of the restrictions upon advertisements for therapeutic goods is the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code which has evolved from guidelines endorsed by the National Health and Medical Research Council in 1972. The main prohibitions of this Code have been adopted into the Therapeutic Goods Regulations since their commencement in February 1991.The Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code seeks to prevent advertising of therapeutic goods to the general public for serious or life threatening conditions because such conditions are not amenable to self diagnosis or treatment.(3) (a) The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) has seized a quantity of illegally imported, unapproved medicine, containing the prescription only drug progesterone. This product did not contain any Dioscorea (the ingredient sometimes referred to as `natural progesterone').This product was falsely presented as containing Dioscorea, not progesterone.The importation and supply within Australia of unapproved medicines poses a significant public health risk and is a criminal offence under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. The product was lawfully seized under the provisions of a search warrant, issued by a Magistrate.(b) The TGA has taken action to prevent the further importation, promotion and supply of the above seized product.The term `natural progesterone' has been adopted as a marketing term by a number of United States based multi-level and direct marketing companies, to promote the sale of creams containing wild yam (Dioscorea). Dioscorea is not a controlled substance in Australia and does not contain progesterone. It is possible, by a series of complex chemical processes to produce progesterone from Dioscorea.The TGA has taken action against the supplier of a product which was falsely labelled and promoted as a cosmetic containing wild yam (Dioscorea). The product did not contain any wild yam but did contain the prescription-only drug, progesterone. The product was neither a cosmetic, nor a natural therapy product, but was in fact a prescription drug.(4) No. The Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 establishes a system for the regulation of therapeutic goods.The Department will only undertake such an assessment if an application is made for inclusion of the product on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. No application has been received to register any `natural progesterone' containing products as alternatives to hormone replacement therapy.